[Senate Hearing 117-57]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 117-57

                         FARMERS AND FORESTERS:
                        OPPORTUNITIES TO LEAD IN
                        TACKLING CLIMATE CHANGE

=======================================================================

                                 HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
                        NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 11, 2021

                               __________

                       Printed for the use of the
           Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
           
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]           


                  Available on http://www.govinfo.gov/

                             __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
45-389 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   
                 
           COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY


                 DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan, Chairwoman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado          JONI ERNST, Iowa
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York      CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
TINA SMITH, Minnesota                ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          TOMMY TUBERVILLE, Alabama
CORY BOOKER, New Jersey              CHARLES GRASSLEY, Iowa
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia             DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
                                     MIKE BRAUN, Indiana

               Joseph A. Shultz, Majority Staff Director
               Mary Beth Schultz, Majority Chief Counsel
                    Jessica L. Williams, Chief Clerk
            Martha Scott Poindexter, Minority Staff Director
                 Fred J. Clark, Minority Chief Counsel
                           
                           
                           C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                        Thursday, March 11, 2021

                                                                   Page

Hearing:

Farmers and Foresters: Opportunities to Lead in Tackling Climate 
  Change.........................................................     1

                              ----------                              

                    STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan...     1
Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas......     3

                               WITNESSES

Stitt, Cori Wittman, Farmer Advisor, Environmental Defense Fund, 
  Lapwai, ID.....................................................     7
Smallhouse, Stefanie, President, Arizona Farm Bureau Federation, 
  Gilbert, AZ....................................................     8
Reifsteck, John, Chairman, GROWMARK Cooperative, National Council 
  of Farmer Cooperatives, Bloomington, IL........................    10
Isbell, Mark, Farmer, USA Rice, England, AR......................    12
Pope, Clay, Farmer, National Farmers Union, Loyal, OK............    13
                              ----------                              

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:
    Stitt, Cori Wittman..........................................    48
    Smallhouse, Stefanie.........................................    53
    Reifsteck, John..............................................    59
    Isbell, Mark.................................................    78
    Pope, Clay...................................................    86

Document(s) Submitted for the Record:
Stabenow, Hon. Debbie:
    BASF, letter of support......................................    96
    Societies, letter of support.................................   100
    American Forest Foundation, letter of support................   106
    Evangelical Environmental Network, letter of support.........   108
    CFAD, letter of support......................................   110
    Forest Climate Working Group, letter of support..............   126
    NAFO, letter of support,.....................................   150
    Our Chldren's Trust, letter of support.......................   155
    EER, letter of support.......................................   237
    NMPF, letter of support......................................   268
    NASDA, letter of support.....................................   271
Warnock, Hon. Raphael:
    Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color Act, letter of support.   273
    Socially Disadvantaged Farmers, letter of support............   296
    Debt Relief for Farmers of Color, letter of support..........   302
    SFPA, letter of support......................................   304
    Nation's Food Supply Businesses, letter of support...........   306
    Emergency Relief for Farmers and Ranchers of Color, letter of 
      support....................................................   307
Boozman, Hon. John:
    Biotechnology Innovation Organization, letter of support.....   314
    National Association of Wheat Growers, letter of support.....   362
    Biofuelwatch, letter of support..............................   364
    PPC, letter of support.......................................   366

Question and Answer:
Stitt, Cori Wittman:
    Written response to questions from Hon. John Boozman.........   370
    Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown........   375
    Written response to questions from Hon. Michael Bennet.......   377
    Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand...   378
    Written response to questions from Hon. Roger Marshall.......   380
    Written response to questions from Hon. Charles Grassley.....   383
    Written response to questions from Hon. Mike Braun...........   385
Smallhouse, Stefanie:
    Written response to questions from Hon. John Boozman.........   388
    Written response to questions from Hon. Michael Bennet.......   393
    Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand...   393
    Written response to questions from Hon. Roger Marshall.......   395
    Written response to questions from Hon. Charles Grassley.....   398
Reifsteck, John:
    Written response to questions from Hon. John Boozman.........   400
    Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown........   403
    Written response to questions from Hon. Michael Bennet.......   405
    Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand...   406
    Written response to questions from Hon. Roger Marshall.......   409
    Written response to questions from Hon. Charles Grassley.....   413
Isbell, Mark:
    Written response to questions from Hon. John Boozman.........   414
    Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown........   417
    Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand...   418
    Written response to questions from Hon. Roger Marshall.......   419
    Written response to questions from Hon. Charles Grassley.....   422
Pope, Clay:
    Written response to questions from Hon. John Boozman.........   424
    Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown........   428
    Written response to questions from Hon. Michael Bennet.......   428
    Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand...   429
    Written response to questions from Hon. Roger Marshall.......   431
    Written response to questions from Hon. Charles Grassley.....   435

 
FARMERS AND FORESTERS: OPPORTUNITIES TO LEAD IN TACKLING CLIMATE CHANGE

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 2021

                                       U.S. Senate,
         Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:21 a.m., in 
room 301, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Debbie Stabenow, 
Chairwoman of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Stabenow, Brown, Klobuchar, Bennet, 
Gillibrand, Smith, Durbin, Booker, Lujan, Warnock, Boozman, 
Hoeven, Ernst, Hyde-Smith, Marshall, Tuberville, Grassley, 
Thune, Fischer, and Braun.

STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE 
    OF MICHIGAN, CHAIRWOMAN, U.S. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 
                    NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

    Chairwoman Stabenow. Good morning. I would like to call 
this hearing to order of the U.S. Senate Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. This is the first hearing 
for our new members, and I want to welcome Senators Booker, 
Lujan, Warnock, Marshall, and Tuberville. Welcome to the 
Committee. We look forward to working with you, and I certainly 
look forward to continuing to partner with Senator Boozman. I 
appreciate working together to get our Secretary confirmed. 
Thank you so much. I am looking forward to some really positive 
bipartisan efforts through the Committee.
    I am so pleased to be holding our first policy hearing this 
Congress on the climate crisis, a topic that is critical to the 
future of every farmer, every rancher, and every forester in 
the country.
    Just ask our Michigan cherry growers, who experienced an 
unseasonably warm spring followed by a late freeze that 
destroyed their entire crop in 2012. They have had challenges 
ever since. Or the foresters and communities out West, who 
spent years growing trees and building their outdoor recreation 
economies, only to watch those potential dollars literally go 
up in flames from worsening wildfires. Or the countless farmers 
in the Southeast who have seen their fields ripped apart by 
destructive hurricanes.
    The climate crisis might seem insurmountable, but our 
farmers and foresters are an important part of the solution. 
Right now, sustainable practices on farms and forests are 
helping producers cut down on their emissions and pull carbon 
out of the air and store it in the soil, roots, and trees.
    The foundation of this vision is the bipartisan Growing 
Climate Solutions Act, which I am pleased to have introduced 
last session with Senator Mike Braun. This is common-sense 
legislation to establish a structure at the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture to help farmers, foresters, and others implement 
climate-smart practices and tap into new economic 
opportunities. Our legislation enables producers to build new 
streams of income through innovative carbon markets. Many 
farmers are interested in this opportunity but just do not know 
how to get started. That is what I hear in Michigan and that is 
understandable.
    While the potential of carbon markets and addressing other 
serious greenhouse gases is very promising, I want to 
acknowledge that they are not going to work for everyone. That 
does not mean farmers cannot benefit from embracing climate-
smart farming.
    Whether it is a corn and soybean grower planting cover 
crops after harvest, or a dairy farmer installing solar panels 
on the roof of their barn, or a forester managing their land to 
grow more mature trees that hold more carbon; these climate-
smart steps are good for the planet and good for business. 
Healthier, carbon-rich soil means lower fertilizer costs. 
Renewable energy helps lower utility bills. Thinning out 
smaller trees can help the big trees grow bigger and provide a 
revenue opportunity for family forest owners.
    These approaches are working. They make sense. Now it is 
time to dramatically scale up this work through policies that 
are voluntary, producer-led, and bipartisan.
    To do that, we need strong coalitions. The Food and 
Agriculture Climate Alliance, made up of nearly 60 leading 
organizations, is one of them. We are so appreciative of their 
leadership. Today we will hear from producers representing five 
organizations: the American Farm Bureau, the Environmental 
Defense Fund, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the 
National Farmers Union, and USA Rice.
    However, the conversation does not end today. This is the 
beginning. We want to hear perspectives from every part of the 
agriculture and forestry economy--small and large operations, 
row crops, specialty crops, conventional and organic farmers, 
biofuel producers, and other drivers of the biobased economy. 
We also need to bring the research community, land grant 
universities, and other perspectives into this dialog. 
Grassroots organizations focused on equity and front-line 
communities are vital to this discussion. We will continue to 
engage with them.
    Additionally, trees and forests have the ability to store 
hundreds of millions of tons of carbon, a reality recognized by 
another impressive coalition in this space called the ``Forest-
Climate Working Group.'' That is why I have introduced two 
bipartisan forestry climate bills, one with Senator Portman and 
another with Senator Braun, that support responsible tree 
planting and climate-smart forest management as tools to 
address the climate crisis. I look forward to working with all 
the members of the Committee and our cosponsors to reintroduce 
both of these bills in the coming weeks and moving them 
forward.
    In advance of this hearing, we have received a number of 
supportive letters and statements from important stakeholders, 
which I now request be added to the record. Without objection.

    [The letters can be found on pages 96-313 in the appendix.]

    Chairwoman Stabenow. Everyone in agriculture and forestry 
should make their voices heard because now is the time to act 
and to lead. We cannot afford to wait any longer, and I am very 
proud to see so much leadership going on from our agriculture 
and forestry community.
    I now want to recognize our Ranking Member, Senator 
Boozman, for his remarks.

 STATEMENT OF HON. SENATOR JOHN BOOZMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 
                       STATE OF ARKANSAS

    Senator Boozman. Well, thank you, Chairwoman Stabenow, for 
setting the stage for this morning's hearing, and I want to 
especially thank our witnesses, a really stellar panel, for 
their time today. I appreciate your interest and commitment to 
finding solutions to numerous complex challenges posed by 
climate change and how farmers and ranchers and foresters can 
play a proactive role in this endeavor while finding themselves 
on a better footing. This Committee has a keen interest in 
learning about opportunities for farmers and foresters that 
allow them to continue to evolve as they increase yields, 
conserve natural resources, sustain economic prosperity, and 
now potentially engage in new markets that value climate change 
mitigation.
    The progress of American agriculture has been continuous 
during our lives. Today's chicken industry uses 75 percent 
fewer resources--land, water, and fossil fuels--than it did in 
1965. Today's dairy industry produces 60 percent more milk than 
it did in 1950 and does so with a herd that is nearly two-
thirds smaller. The U.S. beef industry produces 18 percent of 
the world's beef with only six percent of the world's cattle. 
Since 1980, U.S. rice farmers have increased rice production by 
32 percent while decreasing greenhouse gas emissions by 41 
percent and decreasing water use by 52 percent.
    Every crop grown in the U.S. has similar success stories 
that demonstrate their environmental gains, and U.S. farmers 
will continue to lead the world in making advancements to 
improve the environmental sustainability of our food system. 
Exciting new opportunities to compensate farmers and foresters 
for these environmental gains hold promise.
    However, the current reality is that farmers must navigate 
complex barriers in order to access this uncertain marketplace. 
There are costs associated with verification, validation, 
technical services, new technologies and equipment, and often 
times costs associated with the reduced yields. These costs add 
up and can become prohibitive. For this new opportunity to be 
viable for producers and forest owners, the benefits must 
outweigh the risks and costs they take on. Farmers should not 
be expected to accept a reduction in crop yield or to be forced 
to compensate for that reduction by relying on a speculative 
new income stream derived from developing greenhouse gas credit 
trading.
    We need to foster an environment where we can increase 
yields while improving economic sustainability and new 
opportunities for American farmers, ranchers, and foresters. As 
Congress and the administration develop a framework to promote 
farmer, rancher, and forester participation in combating 
climate change, we must avoid policies that would distort 
planting decisions or markets. Requiring farmers to engage in 
complex activities in order to qualify for vital business needs 
such as credit, insurance, or other farm programs would be a 
mistake.
    Variances across soil types, regions, crops, species, and 
topography pose different complications for farmers with regard 
to capturing carbon in soils. New opportunities for producers 
growing corn are different than opportunities for a producer 
growing specialty crops in a greenhouse or opportunities for 
livestock and so on. This may be a potential income stream for 
some producers, which is a very good thing. For others it could 
be cost-prohibitive. Farm policy must take this complex reality 
into consideration and must not penalize producers to spur 
participation.
    While protecting our climate is critical, we must avoid a 
heavy-handed Government approach that could place unbearable 
requirements on our small farmers, in particular, and likely 
drive concentration within the agriculture sector, which I do 
not think any of us want.
    Madam Chair, I have three documents that I ask to be 
included in the record for today's hearing: two letters and a 
written statement submitted by stakeholder groups interested in 
climate policies.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Without objection, so ordered.
    Senator Boozman. Thank you.

    [The letters can be found on pages 314-367 in the 
appendix.]

    Senator Boozman. Before I close, I have to express my 
disappointment in learning that leaders in the House are 
looking to utilize the budget reconciliation process again this 
year to advance climate change policies. Budget reconciliation 
has unfortunately become a partisan process that does not take 
into consideration the views of the minority at all.
    Climate change poses many complexities for the agriculture 
sector, and input from the Republican members of this Committee 
should be taken into consideration. Climate change policies 
impacting agriculture should be developed here at the 
Agriculture Committee on a bipartisan basis. This has been our 
history and our long-term tradition. I would implore the 
agriculture and forestry stakeholder groups to consider whether 
this is an appropriate path forward to establish policies on an 
issue as important and complex as this. There is too much at 
stake for the agriculture sector and rural America for climate 
policies to be advanced in this manner.
    I am eager to hear from our witnesses who represent unique 
interests to understand how you are approaching these new 
opportunities while also managing the challenges encountered on 
your unique operations.
    With that, I yield back. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much, Senator Boozman. 
Let me just add that the reason, as you know, that we are 
jointly doing this hearing today is because we want to show 
that we can work together on a bipartisan basis on these issues 
and make sure that, again, the efforts that we are doing for 
agriculture and forestry are voluntary, work for producers, 
they are producer-led, and I believe that we can do this in a 
way that is bipartisan and is something that will be very 
meaningful in terms of leadership. Frankly, I am very proud of 
agriculture and forestry leading on this in terms of the folks 
across the country and some we will hear from today.
    We are going to introduce each of the witnesses, and we 
realize that we have a lot of members as well who are with us 
virtually that we will call on as well for questions. We will 
begin to do--we will introduce all of the witnesses together, 
and then come back to Mr. Clay Pope for his opening statement 
as the first witness.
    Our first witness, Clay Pope, is a sixth-generation farmer 
and rancher from Loyal, Oklahoma, and he and his family grow 
winter wheat and raise cattle using soil health and 
regenerative agricultural practices. He is a member of Oklahoma 
Farmers Union and serves as its representative on the National 
Farmers Union Climate Change Policy Advisory Panel. He served 
in the Oklahoma House of Representatives from 1994 through 
2004. Additionally, he helps to facilitate the work of the USDA 
Southern Plains Climate Hub. I have to say on a personal level, 
because my mom was born and raised in Oklahoma, it has a 
special place in my heart for the work being done, and she 
worked on a farm picking cotton. I have a special place in my 
heart to Oklahoma and our growers.
    I would now like to recognize Senator Durbin, who will 
introduce our next witness.
    Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and 
Ranking Member Boozman, for having this important hearing. It 
is my pleasure to introduce one of our witnesses today from my 
home State of Illinois, John Reifsteck. John is a graduate of 
the University of Illinois and is too modest to add that their 
basketball team is 20 and 6 and ranks third in the Nation, but 
I want to put that in the record.
    John Reifsteck has a great story to tell. He is a grain 
farmer in central Illinois and also serves as President and 
Chairman of the board of GROWMARK in Bloomington, Illinois. He 
is here representing the National Council of Farmer-Owned 
Cooperatives. What a story he has to tell. For 25 years, John's 
farm has served as a National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration research station where NOAA has measured his 
farming activities and how they interact with weather, climate, 
soil, water, nutrients, and carbon emissions.
    Can we reduce carbon on the farm? Can we measure it? Just 
look at what John is doing. It is not a theory. He is doing it. 
His activities are being measured and quantified by scientists. 
His farm has generated billions of data points. John is showing 
us not only can it be done, but how it is being done, and many 
farmers are already doing it.
    Ten years ago, I had farm groups visiting my office, as I 
do to this day, and I asked them if any of them believed that 
human activity had anything to do with climate change. Not a 
single hand went up in the room.
    Now, the farm organizations in Illinois are actively 
engaged in this dialog. Madam Chair, that is exactly why this 
hearing is so important. Farmers base their living on science, 
successful science, productive and profitable science. I think 
we ought to have this conversation with him because I believe 
there is room for us to reach agreement on the future.
    I would say to Senator Boozman, your points are well taken. 
I think this is the moment in history where this conversation 
should take place, and I am sure glad that this Committee is 
leading.
    John, of course, is going to be an important part of it, 
and he has data, statistics, and science to back him up. Our 
job is to figure out how to expand these carbon reductions 
throughout farmland in America. I look forward to John's 
testimony.
    I am sorry that I have another Committee meeting this 
morning in the Judiciary Committee, but we are following the 
testimony carefully because it is so timely. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you so much. Thank you for your 
leadership, Senator Durbin.
    Our next witness is Stefanie Smallhouse, President of the 
Arizona Farm Bureau. She represents the American Farm Bureau 
Federation. She manages her family's fifth-generation cow-calf 
operation, cactus greenhouses, and lumber business in Arizona's 
San Pedro River Valley. The Smallhouse family has received 
conservation awards for their farm and ranch management. She is 
past Chair of Farm Bureau's Environmental Issues Advisory 
Committee and represents the Western Region on the Farm Bureau 
Board of Directors. Welcome.
    Next we have Mrs. Cori Wittman. She is a farmer advisor to 
the Environmental Defense Fund. She is a partner in Wittman 
Farms, a diversified crop, cattle, and timber family business 
in northern Idaho. The Wittman family is no stranger to the 
Agriculture Committee. In fact, Cori's father, Dick Wittman, 
testified before the Committee on carbon markets in 2008. It is 
good to see climate-smart expertise runs in the family. Cori 
also spent six years working in agricultural policy here in 
Washington, DC, including as Legislative Assistant for former 
Senator Larry Craig during the passage of the 2008 Farm Bill.
    I would now like to recognize Senator Boozman for an 
introduction.
    Senator Boozman. We are very, very pleased to have Mark 
Isbell representing Arkansas and, more importantly, he was 
really a pioneer in this area. He was one of the first 
individuals to actually sell into carbon markets. Regarding 
rice, rice is a little bit different than some of our other 
crops, and I think it is important that he is here to really 
demonstrate that a one-size-fits-all simply does not work. He 
is an Arkansan. We are ranked number 12, I think, in 
basketball, or we were. Maybe we are a little better than that 
now. We hope to do well as we go forward in that regard.
    Again, we are very pleased to have him, all of his 
expertise, the fact that his farming operation is based on 
science. I think the other thing that I hear as I read the 
testimony with all of these witnesses, it is all about soil 
health. That really is the key.
    Again, we appreciate Mark taking his time and appreciate 
his expertise. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much, Senator Boozman.
    We will turn to the witnesses. I have now been given the 
correct order of the witnesses as they have been told that we 
would call on them. First, Cori Wittman, then Mrs. Smallhouse, 
Mr. Reifsteck, Mr. Isbell, and finally Mr. Pope.
    Cori Wittman, we are very pleased to have you. Welcome.

STATEMENT OF CORI WITTMAN STITT, FARMER ADVISOR, ENVIRONMENTAL 
                  DEFENSE FUND, LAPWAI, IDAHO

    Mrs. Wittman Stitt. Thank you, Chairwoman Stabenow, Ranking 
Member Boozman, and all the members of this Committee for the 
invitation to testify before you today. I am honored to share 
with you about my family's farm, some of our experiences and 
our hopes for the future of our industry.
    I am also here today representing the Environmental Defense 
Fund. For more than a decade, my family has partnered with EDF 
to design voluntary, incentive-based programs that keep farmers 
farming while improving the surrounding environment and 
ecosystem. It is quite the unexpected partnership that has led 
us to this table today.
    Our farm is a diversified crop, cattle, and timber 
operation covering about 18,000 acres just outside of Lewiston, 
Idaho. Our 9,000 crop acres are rotated between wheat, barley, 
peas, lentils, chickpeas, canola, mustard, flax, hay, and 
alfalfa. We also run 350 head of cattle on about 9,000 acres of 
managed pasture and timber ground. I farm in partnership with 
my cousin and brother-in-law, and my husband recently joined 
the operation as well. Our seven-month-old son is the newest 
addition and joins his cousins as a fifth-generation farm kid.
    As multigeneration stewards of the land, we are on the 
front line of impacts from a changing climate. My partners and 
I are seeing hotter hots, colder colds, wetter wets, and drier 
dry spells. It is tougher to get crops in the ground in the 
spring and harder to finish harvest before snow flies. Weather 
extremes have challenged our cattle operations with reduced 
forage and increased invasive weeds. Our timber stands are more 
vulnerable to damage from invasive pests, drought impacts, and 
severe wind.
    Our farm has the potential to be a significant contributor 
to the climate solution. Proven methods like no-till farming 
and diverse crop rotations that decrease reliance on chemicals 
and fertilizers have long held a central place on our farm, and 
we value the environmental benefits these practices provide, as 
well as the economic benefits they deliver for our business.
    In recent years, we have also experimented with cover crops 
and inter-seeding methods with an aim toward further improving 
soil health. Our experiences have had varied levels of success, 
and more work needs to be done to help adapt these practices to 
different regions, topographies, and growing conditions.
    We need Federal policies that encourage broader adoption of 
climate-smart methods. Financial and technical assistance needs 
to be directed to help increase adoption of these known 
methods. At the same time, recognition for early adopters is a 
critical issue that needs to be addressed. We do not want to 
inadvertently penalize those that made early investments in 
climate-smart methods, nor do we want to risk farmers unwinding 
these good practices just to qualify for new markets.
    Last, we need robust investment in research to help define, 
develop, and refine methods that take into account the 
diversity of this country's growing regions.
    In order to tackle this challenge, we need Congress and 
this Committee to support the design of voluntary, incentive-
based programs and market-driven opportunities for the 
agriculture sector. We need policy that maximizes measurable 
net carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas reductions, while 
increasing the resilience of the land. Luckily, the Food and 
Agriculture Climate Alliance has proposed more than 40 policy 
recommendations that would meet these criteria, including 
support for the Growing Climate Solutions Act.
    I would urge this Committee to consider policies that will 
accelerate the development of a whole suite of supportive 
options for producers who want to participate in market-based 
sustainability incentives, while also ensuring that 
participation is equitable, farmer friendly, and transparent.
    I recognize that this is no easy task and that no 
individual policy will be a panacea for climate. I believe that 
we have a unique opportunity for bipartisan congressional 
action to get this process started.
    One of my husband's favorite sayings is, ``You can only eat 
an elephant one bite at a time.'' I think it is time we take a 
first bite in tackling this giant climate challenge.
    Climate change is arguably the greatest threat to our 
industry in this generation and one that is only going to get 
worse without action. I am here as a farmer, manager, and 
forestland owner standing ready with knowledge of the land we 
steward and the potential it holds to be part of this solution. 
I am asking for your help in moving this process forward.
    Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing and for 
taking the time to hear from producers, and I look forward to 
any questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Wittman Stitt can be found 
on page 48 in the appendix.]

    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much for your 
testimony. We will now hear from Mrs. Smallhouse. Welcome.

   STATEMENT OF STEFANIE SMALLHOUSE, PRESIDENT, ARIZONA FARM 
              BUREAU FEDERATION, GILBERT, ARIZONA

    Mrs. Smallhouse. Good morning, Chairwoman Stabenow, Ranking 
Member Boozman, and distinguished members of the Committee. I 
want to begin by thanking you for inviting me to speak on 
behalf of America's farmers and ranchers, and thank you for 
your continued commitment to American agriculture.
    This pandemic has shed light on our Nation's reliance on 
America's farmers and ranchers. With supply chain disruptions 
and market volatility caused by COVID-19, this past year has 
been especially difficult. As we emerge from the pandemic and 
think about our future, we must consider the critical role that 
farmers and ranchers play in our national security, our 
economy, and our environment.
    Agriculture is no stranger to conversations about the 
changing environment within which we must adapt and press 
onward. For decades, we have met research challenges head-on 
and been committed to the better stewardship of our resources 
and our livestock.
    In the U.S., agriculture accounts for only 10 percent of 
total greenhouse gas emissions. By contrast, global ag 
contribution is more than double that of U.S. farmers and 
ranchers at 24 percent. Meanwhile, carbon sequestration 
achieved through the management of soil, forests, grasslands, 
wetlands, and croplands offset 12 percent of total U.S. 
emissions, more than enough to counter agriculture's 
contribution to total emissions.
    U.S. agriculture is a model of sustainability, and 
producers are already involved in climate-smart practices. In 
this discussion, we must be considerate of the impacts of 
climate variability on all of agriculture, the unique needs of 
each sector, and regional differences.
    For example, as a rancher in the West, every drop of water 
is invaluable in producing feed and water for livestock. What 
is being referred to as a ``mega drought'' has severely 
impacted Arizona ranchers and forced the reduction of herd 
numbers and threatened the health of our businesses.
    Drought also contributes to what is perhaps the most 
visible natural resource catastrophe in the West: the dramatic 
increase in frequency and intensity of wildfires. The last 
three years have been three of the worst fire seasons in 
Arizona history, providing a dire reminder of the need for 
proactive forest management.
    Just as the Southwest has unique challenges to overcome 
when it comes to climate sustainability, it also provides 
unique opportunities for voluntary solutions. The Four Forest 
Restoration Initiative is an example of an innovative public-
private partnership that implements forest management 
strategies to prevent and recover from wildfires. Our farms and 
ranches can provide ecosystem services year-round in the 
Southwest. Grazing, the major use of public land in Arizona, is 
a key forest management tool that contributes to plant and 
animal biodiversity and protects watersheds. For example, my 
family's ranch, operating in the same location for over 130 
years, has implemented numerous practices to promote healthy 
soils and conserve water.
    The policy proposals of the Food and Agriculture Climate 
Alliance, of which American Farm Bureau is the founding member, 
give priority for effective voluntary conservation programs. 
Much of the current success of agriculture's sustainability 
model are attributed to voluntary stewardship investments and 
practices, such as those in the farm bill.
    There are certainly farms and ranches across the U.S. 
implementing conservation practices without participating in 
Government cost share, but the great majority are likely 
contracted with the USDA due to the high cost of investing in 
such practices as compared to the return on investment. The 15 
percent of farm acreage enrolled in conservation programs is 
significant, but there is certainly room for growth. 
Competition for this funding can be intense, and staffing 
shortages result in project approval and implementation 
backlogs.
    As we look forward, any policy that addresses proactive 
measures to influence climate conditions cannot be one-size-
fits-all, as was mentioned in the opening statements. Just as I 
have highlighted the unique needs of Arizona's farmers and 
ranchers in the West, all regions of the U.S. can explain ways 
in which any given climate policy may or may not work for the 
landscape, sector, or ecology present in that region. Every 
farm and ranch is unique, and policy considerations must be 
able to encompass the distinctive needs of everything from corn 
and soybeans to leafy greens and public lands grazing.
    We also urge our policymakers to expand the scope through 
which we view climate policy to include other natural 
resources, especially water. Unprecedented drought in the West 
threatens the sustainability of thousands of farmers and 
ranchers growing food and fiber on millions of acres. 
Therefore, investment in water infrastructure is something that 
must be considered.
    Finally, to develop innovative technologies to capture more 
carbon in our croplands, forests, and grasslands, we really 
need increased investment in agricultural research. American 
farm families such as my own want to leave the land better than 
when it was entrusted to us. Working with our partners, land 
grant universities, lawmakers, and the farmers and ranchers we 
represent, American Farm Bureau and its federations of States 
and counties intend to continue finding bipartisan solutions 
that meet both our current and future needs.
    Madam Chair, I thank you for convening this hearing and for 
your efforts on behalf of American agriculture, and I look 
forward to answering questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Smallhouse can be found on 
page 53 in the appendix.]

    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you so much. We really 
appreciate your testimony. Mr. Reifsteck, welcome.

 STATEMENT OF JOHN REIFSTECK, CHAIRMAN, GROWMARK COOPERATIVE, 
 NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER COOPERATIVES, BLOOMINGTON, ILLINOIS

    Mr. Reifsteck. Chairwoman Stabenow, Ranking Member Boozman, 
and members of the Committee, thank you for holding today's 
hearing. Senator Durbin, thank you for your kind introduction.
    I am John Reifsteck, a grain farmer from Champaign County 
in central Illinois and chairman of the board of GROWMARK, a 
North America agriculture cooperative based in Bloomington, 
Illinois. Our co-op is owned by local member cooperatives and 
provides inputs and grain marketing services.
    I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on 
behalf of GROWMARK, the National Council of Farmer 
Cooperatives, and the Food and Agriculture Climate Alliance.
    Our farm has sustained three generations of my family. I 
live in the farmhouse my grandfather built 107 years ago. My 
father and grandfather were good farmers, but how they farmed 
then would not work today. This is particularly true because 
the climate they faced is not the same one I face today.
    Throughout my time farming, I have constantly sought out 
ways to reduce my footprint because it is good for the 
environment, it is good for my farm, and it is the right thing 
to do.
    Since 1996, we have collaborated with the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration by hosting a climate research 
site on our farm. It is estimated that more than eight billion 
pieces of data have been collected both above and below this 
field since the research began. This site, and its data, has 
been utilized in nearly 400 scientific publications by multiple 
Federal agencies and universities to better understand the 
interaction between crops, soils, and the climate. The data 
collected literally spans from the enzyme to the ecosystem.
    For example, during harvest, I collect and report yield, 
crop moisture, and GPS location data every second. Each year, 
750 plant and soil samples are analyzed for as many as 20 
different attributes. Measurements are taken of nutrients, 
carbon, water, and energy entering and leaving the field.
    The results have shown the impact that climate-friendly 
farming practices can have. Researchers compared my fields, 
which use conservation tillage, with nearby research sites 
using conventional tillage. We have learned that on my farm 
conservation tillage sequesters about 1,000 pounds of carbon 
per acre annually. In comparison, sites that use conventional 
tillage release nearly 2,000 pounds of carbon on average. That 
is a meaningful difference.
    As Congress works on climate legislation for agriculture, 
programs need to be based on this kind of hard data, drawn from 
real-world operations, not from theoretical models. If farmers 
are going to adapt new practices, they need to know how and if 
it is going to work and how it will improve the productivity 
and sustainability of their farms.
    At the end of the day, we want to do this the right way. It 
should be about the practices that have a noticeable and 
meaningful impact. At the same----
    [inaudible] the unpredictable. Thoughtful legislation such 
as the Growing Climate Solutions Act introduced by Chairwoman 
Stabenow and Senator Braun will be essential in making their 
impact.
    So, too, will be the work that NCFC has done with the other 
members of the Food and Agriculture Climate Alliance. The 
policy recommendations they have outlined would give farmers 
and their co-ops, such as GROWMARK, the chance to play an 
important role in addressing climate change. Please refer to my 
written testimony for more details.
    In conclusion, I would like to add one observation. Just a 
few years ago, climate change was not an issue that farmers 
talked about among themselves, at meetings, or in the coffee 
shop. Today it is. There is a growing realization that, done 
correctly, policies that promote climate-friendly practices can 
produce farm income, increase productivity, and address one of 
the most pressing challenges the planet faces.
    Policies should recognize that farming is increasingly a 
collaborative effort. The best will come from partnerships 
between farmers, Government, land grant institutions, and 
organizations that are dedicated to helping farmers be 
successful and their farms remain sustainable. Cooperatives, by 
their very nature, have a key role to play.
    Again, thank you for holding this hearing, and I look 
forward to answering your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Reifsteck can be found on 
page 59 in the appendix.]

    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. We would now like 
to turn to Mr. Isbell.

 STATEMENT OF MARK ISBELL, FARMER, USA RICE, ENGLAND, ARKANSAS

    Mr. Isbell. Thank you, Madam Chair Stabenow, Ranking Member 
Boozman, esteemed members of this Committee. I appreciate the 
opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of the U.S. rice 
industry.
    Through the innovation of farmers, the insight of 
scientists, and the impact of important USDA programs, U.S. 
agriculture has grown ever more efficient in its ability to 
provide food for our fellow citizens. During my lifetime, rice 
farmers have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 41 percent, 
cut water use in half, and decreased energy use by 34 percent. 
U.S. rice farms also enhance water quality, create an estimated 
$3.5 billion in the central habitat for migratory waterfowl, 
and provide a host of other environmental co-benefits. In 
addition to these economic, nutritional, and environmental 
contributions of U.S. farmers, is there also opportunity for 
the farmers of America to address climate change? The answer to 
that question is a resounding yes. I know this because farmer 
already are.
    This Committee and Congress at large can facilitate and 
accelerate the role of agriculture in answering these 
challenges. If we are to succeed, it is vital to get the 
details right.
    On my family's farm in Arkansas, while working with the 
Agricultural Research Service and the University of Arkansas, 
we have adopted strategies to decrease methane emissions by 
over 60 percent. These practices led us to being among a small 
group of farmers who in 2016 sold the first-ever carbon credits 
associated with rice production. When people ask me about that 
experience, I tell them this: ``Let me buy you a drink and tell 
you the story. If I am buying the drink with money we made from 
those credits, I can only afford to buy you one drink.''
    This is the reality. Agriculture has potential to mitigate 
and sequester greenhouse gas. A viable marketplace that 
adequately and equitably values and incentivizes this remains 
elusive. This Committee can be part of the catalyst that is 
needed, but several essential pillars must form the foundation 
of the work this Committee endeavors.
    Climate solutions must be based on the best available peer-
reviewed science. We must follow the science, and we must 
follow the data. New programs cannot come at the expense of 
proven programs like CSP, EQIP, and RCPP. We cannot build 
higher by dismantling the foundation beneath us. In fact, 
Congress should increase investment in the existing suite of 
NRCS working lands programs. While these programs work well, 
they are severely underfunded.
    In Arkansas, for example, applications have exceeded 
funding by a factor of 3:1 over the last five years. New 
funding should also include adequate resources for FSA and NRCS 
staff, who are integral to the success of these programs.
    New programs must be voluntary and eliminate regulatory 
barriers. Participation must forever be voluntary and never 
become a precondition to accessing other USDA programs. 
Additionally, regulatory and bureaucratic hurdles must be 
eliminated.
    Also, we must ensure that the value flows equitably through 
the supply chain. It is important that solutions to address 
climate concerns are developed in a way that farmers can be 
partners with the public in addressing climate change. It is 
likewise imperative that carbon markets not morph into a 
fulcrum organization that middlemen use to leverage value from 
farmers that is not equitably distributed throughout the supply 
chain.
    Finally, no single solution will be appropriate to each 
cropping system or region. It is essential that this Committee 
understand that climate opportunities in agriculture extend 
beyond the buzz words of soil health, cover crops, and carbon 
markets. A shortsighted approach not only excludes multiple 
crops in regions, but neglects transformative opportunities for 
creating a diverse portfolio of solutions. The importance of 
soil health is well established, but even though at my family's 
farm in Arkansas we have some of the highest organic matter in 
the State, the science and the data reveal that irrigation 
practices hold the greatest potential for us and other rice 
farmers to offset greenhouse gases. The potential of cover 
crops in rice must be balanced against known benefits of winter 
flooding for migratory waterfowl habitat. You will find many 
similar examples from other farmers, other crops, and other 
regions.
    The consequences of getting this wrong are dire. Imprudent 
policy could have the unintended consequence of shifting 
production overseas and away from the well-regulated, secure, 
and sustainable supply of domestically produced food. It could 
mean lost time, wasted resources, and distorted markets. With 
an open mind and an inclusive approach, this Committee can play 
a role in unleashing the enduring creativity of American 
agriculture to attenuate climate change. If the Senate intends 
to address climate change, agriculture is a proven sound 
investment. Farmers of America must have a strong voice in 
shaping this policy, and careful attention must be paid to the 
details. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Isbell can be found on page 
78 in the appendix.]

    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. I appreciate your 
comments. Mr. Pope, welcome.

STATEMENT OF CLAY POPE, FARMER, NATIONAL FARMERS UNION, LOYAL, 
                            OKLAHOMA

    Mr. Pope. Thank you, Chairwoman Stabenow, Ranking Member 
Boozman, and members of the Committee. My name is Clay Pope. I 
am a sixth-generation wheat and cattle producer from Loyal, 
Oklahoma. I am also a member of the Oklahoma Farmers Union, and 
I am honored to have the chance to testify today on behalf of 
National Farmers Union about climate change and U.S. gal.
    For more than a century, my family has farmed the same land 
following largely the same cycle. After harvest, we would use 
conventional tillage to control weeds and prepare the ground 
for planting. Once our wheat was planted and up, we would graze 
cattle in early March--or until early March, and then we would 
harvest in the summer and start the cycle all over again.
    Then, in 2004, worn-out equipment, concerns about erosion, 
and rising input costs, we worked with NRCS and utilized EQIP 
to convert to no-till. A few years later, with more help from 
USDA, we began incorporating cover crops and enrolled in the 
Conservation Stewardship Program. We have never looked back.
    We still grow winter wheat and graze cattle, but now we 
work to minimize soil disturbance, maintain residue cover on 
the soil, keep something growing on the land as much as 
possible, and graze cover crops as well as wheat--all practices 
that help promote soil health.
    Now, I cannot scientifically quantify all the benefits our 
land has received from soil health. What I can tell you is that 
for the last four years we have had some of our best wheat ever 
while using roughly half of the fertilizer that we did when we 
conventionally tilled. We are burning less fuel and benefiting 
from grazing cover crops.
    Our soil health practices have also helped us adapt our 
operation to the extreme weather events that climate change is 
exacerbating. The bottom line is that our investment in soil 
health has helped us better prepare for climate change in a way 
that has helped both our bottom line and the environment. It 
has worked for us, and I believe it can for others, too.
    The benefits of soil health practices do not stop with 
climate change My State of Oklahoma is a great example. For 
nearly 30 years, we have been helping ag producers adopt soil 
health practices through incentive-based, voluntary programs to 
improve water quality in an effort that has resulted in the 
removal of over 90 streams from the EPA impaired streams list, 
more than any other State in the Nation.
    Climate change presents several challenges for agriculture 
for sure, but it also presents opportunities. Carbon and other 
ecosystem service markets potentially could provide additional 
income streams for farmers and ranchers, but we need to ensure 
that these markets achieve their goals and work for producers.
    Again, my home State has an example. In 2001, the State 
established a carbon credit program that made the Oklahoma 
Conservation Commission the referee for carbon credits. Local 
conservation districts with training from NRCS verified 
practices implemented by farmers and ranchers. Verification 
costs were paid by credit purchasers with no cost to 
participating producers. Congress and USDA should look to this 
model to ensure producers have an affordable and reliable way 
to generate tradeable credits.
    Looking forward, we must use all the tools at our disposal 
to help agriculture address climate change. First, Congress 
must work with USDA and farmers to emphasize climate adaptation 
in the implementation of all conservation programs. I truly 
believe the last Farm Bill was the most important piece of 
Federal climate legislation to date, but the programs 
authorized in this act need to be improved to reflect the scope 
of the challenge.
    Congress must work with USDA to emphasize climate adaption 
in conservation programs and provide additional funds for local 
NRCS staff to assist with conservation planning and technical 
assistance.
    It is also vital to recognize early adopters of soil health 
practices, many of whom will not be able to participate in 
carbon markets due to the issue of ``additionality.'' There are 
thousands of producers who have worked years to improve their 
land. It would be a horrible mistake not to provide 
opportunities for these pioneers.
    Congress and USDA should work together to ensure that 
carbon markets are accessible and affordable for producers by 
having USDA serve as the arbitrator of these efforts with the 
authority to establish a public sector verification system for 
credits. We must recognize that not all farms will be able to 
sequester large amounts of carbon due to factors such as 
region, soil type, and farm size. Additional ecosystem markets 
or other conservation payment programs perhaps like an expanded 
CSP should exist for those farmers and ranchers who employ soil 
health practices and provide public benefits like improved 
water quality, but who, due to location or other factors, 
sequester little carbon.
    Finally, USDA must build on its research efforts because 
from drought-resistant seeds to cattle bred to deal with 
extreme weather stress, farmers and ranchers need all the tools 
that they can get.
    The Agricultural Research Service and public research 
entities must have the resources necessary to undertake this 
work.
    As part of this, Congress and USDA should buildupon the 
existing climate hub network, which pulls expertise from across 
USDA and engages farmers and ranchers. They can help coordinate 
efforts and information among agencies through education and 
outreach efforts and help overcome hesitancy with both 
producers and USDA employees who are just a little bit hesitant 
about broaching the subject of climate change.
    In closing, I would like to reiterate that agriculture is 
indeed facing numerous challenges resulting from climate 
change. The good news is we have a path forward. The question 
is: Will we take it?
    Remember, Members, the secret is in the soil, and cows 
really can save the planet.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pope can be found on page 86 
in the appendix.]

    Chairwoman Stabenow. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Pope.
    Let me start with a question to followup on what you 
indicated when you said that the most important piece of 
Federal climate legislation to date was our 2018 Farm Bill. We 
worked very hard in a bipartisan way, as you know, to put in 
some very important climate-smart policies, particularly around 
conservation. It is hard to believe we actually are thinking 
about another farm bill a couple years away, but I want to make 
sure that we are building on that. Mr. Isbell talked about not 
taking from existing programs to fund something new on climate. 
I could not agree more. This has got to be about adding. I 
think we all want to make sure that we are adding to the 
resources for farmers and foresters.
    Could you speak a little bit more about how we can use the 
conservation title and other authorities to do even more to 
tackle the climate crisis?
    Mr. Pope. Well, you know, to start with, I mentioned about 
additional resources to your local NRCS staff, especially for 
conservation planning and technical assistance. If you look at 
what conservation planning is designed to address and then put 
it up next to a lot of the challenges that we are facing from 
climate change, you start to see some similarities in them. 
That is why the first place to start is to really make sure 
that we have got the resources at the local level to help 
implement those programs and that we are providing a focus to 
help deal with climate change, and then, of course, obviously, 
fully funding the suite of programs like EQIP and the 
Conservation Stewardship Program. Also I mentioned CSP, 
possibly looking at making CSP or starting from whole cloth to 
maybe do something as far as an actual program that would fall 
underneath the WTO green box definition, you know, a program 
that actually pays producers based on their stewardship. I 
think that is key.
    Stepping away from the conservation title, I think making 
sure that we have solid risk management tools. I know crop 
insurance has been mentioned, what we see with the programs at 
FSA like ARC and PLC, making sure that we maintain the strength 
of those programs. Clearly, in the conservation title, 
providing that focus and making sure that we have got that deal 
with, also the Research Title to make sure that we are giving 
the emphasis, the focus, and the resources, not just at ARS but 
at land grant institutions, and then utilizing that climate hub 
network like I spoke to, to try to help cut back on some of the 
stovepiping that we see between agencies and help get that 
outreach and communication out to those producers and agency 
staff.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much.
    Mrs. Wittman, based on your testimony, it seems like you 
have grown every crop possible in Idaho, and you know how 
important diversification is. One of the great things about 
voluntary carbon markets is that, as we know, they can provide 
farmers with an opportunity for additional income. I wonder if 
you might speak to the importance of having multiple revenue 
streams for a farm like yours and how carbon markets could 
improve a farm's financial position.
    Mrs. Wittman Stitt. Absolutely, Senator. Thank you for that 
question. Yes, we always say if it can grow in this area, we 
have probably tried it. Whether or not it has been successful 
is another question. Our generation is always looking for new 
and innovative revenue streams, particularly when we are trying 
to buy into a capital-intensive environment and coming off of 
three to five years of a tight margin environment. Carbon is 
one of those things that we can look at and say this is a 
service that we can provide to the economy, to the public, that 
they value, and there are incredible ways to tap into that.
    The challenge has been that we do not really have an 
effective mechanism to do that. Right now there is not a lot of 
certainty or credibility or structure to how we can access 
carbon markets. Right now, if we want to go out and measure the 
amount of carbon that we sequestered, we do not really have any 
idea where to start. What tests do we use? Where do we send it? 
How can we test the results? That is some of the reason we 
really wanted to get behind your Growing Climate Solutions Act. 
That piece of legislation would provide some structure, 
validity, and certainty to those of us who are willing to enter 
that market, to diversify the revenue streams that we have. 
Access to these markets would further support our ability to 
implement some really important conservation strategies.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Great. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Reifsteck, your written testimony indicated that 
Government researchers have called your farm ``the most studied 
agricultural field on the planet''--that is quite a 
distinction--because of your long-time carbon research station 
which you started in 1996. I wonder if you might tell me, 
before my time runs out here, what you have learned in the last 
25 years, and, for example, what practices are the best at 
storing carbon. How long did it take for you to see benefits 
from that?
    Mr. Reifsteck. Well, thank you for the question, Senator. 
Yes, this has been a fascinating process to work with these 
researchers. They are very smart people that are trying to 
understand what is going on in the agriculture environment. It 
has taken a long time to gather that kind of data, but that is 
what is important, is we have long-term quality data.
    The challenge for us now is to turn that data into 
actionable items that can be implemented across not just my 
farm but lots of farms. That is going to be the next challenge 
that we have here, because I really do believe that what we 
have learned can reduce greenhouse gases and improve the 
quality of our soils and make agriculture a contributor to the 
challenges.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Great. Thank you very much.
    Senator Boozman.
    Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I thank all 
of you for being here.
    Mr. Isbell, we appreciate your testimony. You are a guy 
that has got--you have two Bachelor's degrees, a Master's 
degree, formed a company that has to do with intelligence and 
data. You are the guy that really does look at the data, try 
and do things the best that you can do. You participated in a 
pilot project that was designed to help you sequester carbon on 
your farm and trade those carbon credits for additional 
revenue.
    Would you please describe to the Committee what you learned 
in participating in the pilot program and your experience 
navigating the market?
    Mr. Isbell. Certainly. Well, you know, the first thing I 
would say we have learned is that there are a lot of good 
people, well-intentioned people out there trying to make this 
process work, a lot of good researchers, a lot of good 
scientists that are interested in making sure that we can find 
viable markets for the ecosystem benefits that farmers are able 
to create.
    In our pilot project, what we also learned is with the 
current way things work, it was not profitable. It was a multi-
year process over a couple hundred acres. I was looking 
earlier. I think there were seven different organizations that 
were part of the transaction that took place. At the end of the 
day, it was $133 that we made, and I know that because we 
cashed the check. We put it in an envelope, and we decided that 
we might do something special with it someday. You know, who 
knows what? Maybe invest in GameStop or something.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Isbell. It did not work in our situation very well. 
That does not mean that I do not remain hopeful that there are 
opportunities, but it tells me that we have to be more open-
minded in what those opportunities look like. There is a 
difference that can be made with agriculture. That is clear. 
How we access the carbon markets and whether that is the best 
way, we need to be careful that we do not pin ourselves down to 
only that potential revenue stream, and look at other ways that 
we can maximize the benefits, the environmental benefits that 
we bring to the table.
    Senator Boozman. Very good. Thank you.
    Mrs. Stitt, there is interest from the administration in 
achieving net zero emissions for the agriculture sector by 
2050. When you consider that goal for the entire agriculture 
and food value chain, the proposition becomes quite 
complicated. You still have to fuel the equipment, dry the 
corn, or process the sugar beets or ethanol, and manage the 
transportation of commodities and fresh products.
    In light of these realities, do you have concerns about the 
cost of energy on your operation and throughout the value chain 
to meet the President's goal of reaching zero emissions by 
2050?
    Mrs. Wittman Stitt. Thank you for that question, and, yes, 
the cost of energy is always top of mind in our operation. 
Really, as we are looking at the broader climate question, our 
biggest concern is: Are we going to be asked to make additional 
changes on our operation without being compensated for those 
changes? Energy certainly filters into that discussion.
    Right now in the carbon markets, there are companies that 
are not really willing to pay as much as we believe they should 
be for these changes in practices. There are reports that as 
much as 75 percent of the carbon payments are going to 
verifiers and certifiers. That does not, obviously, leave much 
for the farmers. We have a real opportunity here. We have an 
opportunity to take a step forward and create some structure 
where farmers can access that additional revenue stream and can 
offset things like energy costs. That is what I am really 
hoping for today, that we can take that first step forward and 
create some structure.
    Senator Boozman. Good. Thank you.
    Mr. Isbell, you come from a State with a cropping system 
that has unique considerations for environmental sustainability 
and mitigating climate change. Planting cover crops to foster 
greater carbon sequestration holds a lot of promise for some 
producers, but that practice in a one-size-fits-all approach 
may not be viable for producers in regions like yours.
    Given this reality, what are some specific considerations 
for producers in States like this, and regions, as they operate 
with an eye toward sustainability?
    Mr. Isbell. You know, the benefits that rice can bring to 
sustainability and to climate solutions are well established. 
We create significant biodiversity and habitat for waterfowl. 
Our friends in California are creating salmon habitat and ways 
of raising baby salmon in the rice fields there. My friends 
down on the gulf coast are providing habitat for crawfish and 
yellow rails.
    Soil carbon, as I mentioned, and cover crops are not the 
only thing that can be done. Water savings and water quality is 
another big thing. I am sure many of you have a cup of water 
sitting there in front of you. Other parts of the world, 100 
grains of rice, 20 cups of water to grow those 100 grains of 
rice. Here in Arkansas, we can do it with five.
    There are a lot of environmental benefits that we can bring 
to the table, and there are a lot of ways we can support that 
if we buy U.S.-grown agricultural products and use processes 
like this to help bring those practices more forward.
    Senator Boozman. Thank you very much.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much, Senator Boozman.
    Now just for our members, as people have logged on or been 
here in the meeting today, we are keeping track of who is here 
and who has logged on and then who is now available to be able 
to ask a question at this moment. Based on that information, I 
would turn to Senator Smith.
    Senator Smith. Well, thank you so much, Chairwoman Stabenow 
and Ranking Member Boozman. It is great to be with all of you, 
and I really appreciate this bipartisan hearing on this 
incredibly important issue.
    Let me just start with this. You know, I think that a lot 
of this conversation has been about how farmers can be a big 
part of the solution to the climate crisis, and I know that 
producers in Minnesota are really leading the way in developing 
innovative solutions that are reducing carbon emissions, 
improving soil health, and protecting land for future 
generations. Of course, these are the things that nobody cares 
about more than the farmers that live on this land.
    I also know that farmers know a lot about mitigation and 
adapting to climate change, and that this is not just a 
necessary step; it is something that is going to be good for 
their bottom lines.
    In Minnesota, and I know many other places around the 
country, we are seeing also how renewable energy is providing a 
new source of revenue for farmers. You know, you can have a 
wind turbine on your land and also still have that land 
underneath the turbine be productive and be farmland also. 
There are many, many ways that farmers are adapting. I have 
been inspired by what I have seen with this.
    Let me just ask all of the panel, if I could, what role do 
you see clean energy on farmland playing in the broader effort 
to address climate change within the agricultural sector? What 
are some of the current challenges that are holding back 
progress on deploying clean energy technology on farms and in 
rural communities? If you have any success stories that you can 
share, I would be really interested in hearing them so we can 
learn from that.
    Who wants to dive in?
    Mr. Isbell. I will be glad to speak to that, Senator Smith. 
On our farm here in Arkansas, we installed solar panels here a 
few years ago, and it was made possible by being able to store 
up the credits that those create, that we put--``net metering'' 
is what it is called, where we buildup credit in the system, 
and then we are able to use that when we need it. We are able 
to offset a third of the energy use that we need, and some of 
the things that have come through, tax credits and stuff, help 
make that possible for farms to establish that and to use 
cleaner energy.
    Even in front of that, adaptation from other types of power 
to electricity are very helpful. You could do that through 
EQIP, CSP, and things like that where you can adapt your diesel 
engines to electric, and those are important steps to be taken 
so that we can access a cleaner energy market with things like 
solar and wind.
    Senator Smith. Thank you.
    Mr. Pope. I would also add to that, just kind of building 
on that comment, you know, I mentioned EQIP and the energy 
incentive programs that are underneath EQIP. I think also, you 
know, the REAP program that is at rural development that 
provides loan assistance to rural businesses to try to produce 
activity that you can undertake under EQIP.
    I think one of the challenges, though, that you find with 
both of those programs, at least our experience in Oklahoma has 
been the ability of the agencies to provide--or to find people 
with the expertise to do the initial audits with the producers. 
I think that kind of goes back, again, to what we have been 
talking about, about making sure that our existing USDA 
agencies have the resources and personnel to be able to do some 
of these things. Again, it is one of those tools I referred to 
from the last farm bill that if you look at it a certain way, 
it is a great climate change adaptation and mitigation tool. We 
have just got to make sure that we are making the right focus 
and we are giving the love to it that it needs to make sure 
that it really works the way that we want it to. Then you see 
the opportunity on some of these things, as was mentioned, 
about conversion to electricity, wind, and solar, I think there 
are some opportunities out there. Biofuels also has been 
something there is a lot of interest in. As a wheat producer, 
you know, we do not produce corn or soybeans, but I definitely 
know it helps the agriculture industry across the board while 
also helping reduce the overall carbon level that we have in 
our transportation system.
    I think there are a lot of opportunities out there to 
making sure we have got the resources we need to carry them 
out.
    Senator Smith. Right. Thank you. This is particularly an 
issue, isn't it, when we think about how to ensure that these 
opportunities are available to smaller-scale farms. You know, 
we know we have so much work to do to make sure that farmers of 
color, diverse farmers have access and can participate and also 
that the programs are flexible enough to be able to account 
for, you know, their traditional ways of doing things.
    Mr. Reifsteck. Senator, if I may add, the Rural Energy for 
America Program is an example of a Federal program that is 
oversubscribed, and there is a certain barrier to entry. For 
example, cooperatives cannot participate in that. I think there 
are small things that we can do. I talked about living in my 
farm home from 107 years ago. It was originally heated with 
coal. We use geothermal today. We have made great progress in 
reducing the amount of fuel that we use to grow every acre of 
the crop. These are small things, but small things add up over 
time.
    Senator Smith. Yes. This is a ``yes, and'' answer, I 
believe, not a ``pick the right solution'' answer. We have to 
be able to do a lot of different things.
    Did you want to say something, too?
    Mrs. Smallhouse. Senator Smith, I was just going to mention 
that I still think the return on investment--I know that we 
have looked at solar investment on our place, and it is still 
extremely high, and so I know there are a lot of farmers that 
are still looking at that in terms of the return on investment. 
There is a lot of pushback for a lot of farmers and ranchers to 
put in wind and solar from their communities, people that does 
not like to see windmills and do not like to see solar panels. 
That is a challenge.
    I would also add to the ethanol discussion, in terms of 
renewable energy and how much that has reduced carbon emissions 
in the United States, so that is something we would continue to 
support, obviously.
    Senator Smith. Me, too. I totally agree with that. Thank 
you very much for your comments. It is very helpful.
    Thank you, Madam Chair Stabenow.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you, Senator Smith, very much.
    We will now turn to Senator Tuberville, and, again, welcome 
to the Committee.
    Senator Tuberville. Thank you, Chairwoman. Thank you very 
much. Ranking Member Boozman, thank you for your help.
    I am excited about being here. Alabama's farmers and rural 
communities sent me here to be their voice, and I plan to fight 
hard on their behalf. Rural Alabama and rural communities all 
across our Nation must not be forgotten, and I will use my 
position on this Committee to express the views and opinions of 
Alabama farmers so that they can continue to do what they do 
best: farm their land with undue burdens on them. With farming 
and forestry combining to make agriculture the largest industry 
in Alabama, I look forward to serving the Ag Committee to 
ensure they continue to thrive.
    In order for the agriculture economy to continue to thrive, 
farmers must have productive land to produce a crop year in and 
year out. Farmland acreage across this country, including in 
Alabama, is not expanding; it is shrinking. The trend continues 
on our farmers having to produce more with less to feed our 
country and the world. If the Department of Agriculture is 
going to play a direct or indirect part in carbon banking or 
greenhouse gas reduction practices, highly fertile and 
productive lands cannot be moved into retirement in attempts to 
achieve this. Additionally, any programs like this either 
through the Government or the private sector must be voluntary, 
market-driven, and incentive-based.
    According to the Biden administration with the Executive 
order on climate change, they outlined a 30/30 initiative of 
conserving at least 30 percent of our lands and water by 2030.
    Mr. Isbell, as a farmer, if you lost 30 percent of your 
farmland, would you still be profitable? Or would then level of 
reduction to your productive lands have a largely negative 
effect on your operation?
    Mr. Isbell. Thank you, Senator Tuberville. Having working 
lands programs is always important to active farmers. That is 
why things like CSP, EQIP, and RCPP that actually promote 
sustainable practices on land that we are making productive are 
in my mind the most important things to address climate 
solutions.
    To your question, removing significant ground out of 
production would have a negative economic impact, and that is 
why I think we need policies that support the activities on 
working lands and are able to help us continue with that.
    Senator Tuberville. Thank you. You know, today's hearing is 
``Farmers and Foresters: Opportunities to Lead in Tackling 
Climate Change,'' and I am all for that. Alabama has 23.1 
million acres of forest; 94 percent of those forests are owned 
by more than 250,000 private forest owners. Forests need to be 
protected, but we protect them by managing them, and in keeping 
a managed forest, it remains healthy and productive. In the 
South, particularly in Alabama, healthy forests are driven by 
healthy markets for the products growing in these forests.
    As I read, you have some timber in your operation, Ms. 
Wittman. Do you think there is an opportunity to do more in 
existing forests, especially private and family owned forests, 
many of which are also part of a farm, to address climate 
change?
    Mrs. Wittman Stitt. Well, Senator, thank you for that 
question, and, yes, I absolutely agree. There is a huge 
opportunity for forests, both large and small, to be part of 
the climate solution. Trees, as we know, are amazing carbon 
sinks. A growing tree stores carbon. When it is harvested, it 
converts that carbon into--that carbon resource to permanent 
storage if you are taking it into lumber or construction 
products, then you can replant the tree and start the process 
over. It is a brilliant mechanism, really.
    We believe that, like you said, with proper forest 
management you can really optimize the forest's ability to 
sequester and store the maximum amount of carbon. It will also 
improve forest health and its resilience. We really believe 
that much like we need to keep farmers farming, we want to keep 
our foresters' forests, and we need to have the mechanisms 
available to continue that cycle of growing, harvesting, and 
replanting those trees.
    There are a lot of things that we can do to do that better, 
and I think that we need to continue to develop voluntary, 
market-based incentives, again, to help forest owners like us 
increase that sequestration. A particular need in our area is 
continued support for reforestation. It is extremely cost-
prohibitive to replant after a timber harvest. It can cost 
upwards of $400 to $500 an acre to replant. Oftentimes it is 
equal to the value of the property itself in our area. That is 
one area that we can really emphasize the need for continued 
market-based incentives in that area.
    Senator Tuberville. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you.
    Senator Klobuchar.
    [No response.]
    Chairwoman Stabenow. I believe that Senator Klobuchar had 
logged on. We will give her one more minute. Senator Klobuchar?
    [Pause.]
    Chairwoman Stabenow. I believe we do not have Senator 
Klobuchar at the moment. Senator Hyde-Smith is next. Thank you.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking 
Member. Good to be here.
    Following up with one of the questions Senator Tuberville 
had talking about forestland, we have a little less acreage of 
that in Mississippi, but we still have about 20 million acres 
of forestland in Mississippi and about 125,000 private forest 
landowners.
    About a year ago, last Easter, we had tornadoes that came 
through Mississippi, and it destroyed acres, just thousands of 
acres of timberland. They just really do not have a lot of 
protection, a lot of options after that. They just literally 
lose millions of dollars worth of timber, and they can either 
sell the land, replant the forest, or just accept the financial 
losses. We have so many families that say, ``That was my kid's 
college education, that stand of timber, and now it is 
destroyed by a natural force, and I have no protection of 
someone coming in and paying me for that or any help with it.''
    Last Congress, I introduced the Forest Recovery Act which 
would provide a tax deduction for at least the casualty losses 
of that timber, and, you know, it not only helped the 
landowners recover, but also encourage other people to invest 
in forestry and reforesting damaged acres.
    My question to you as a group--this is really concerning to 
me because it is such a major industry in my State. Should 
Congress develop better policies to protect private forest 
landowners? Given the importance of these forestlands 
throughout the Southeast, in particular in my State, how do we 
need to go about or should we develop more programs that would 
assist in these natural disasters of tornadoes and hurricanes 
that we have in my State particularly?
    Mr. Pope. Well, I will jump in real quick. I know just 
enough about forestry to be real dangerous. Where I live at, we 
have got to drive about--on the fall foliage tour, we say we 
drive 30 miles to go to town to watch a tree change color. At 
the end of the day, as far as the idea of risk management with 
producers dealing with extreme weather events, as I alluded to, 
making sure that we do have those tools, I think it is 
extremely important for all sectors of production agriculture, 
because if there is one thing all the folks with crystal balls 
seem to agree with, it is that what we have always considered 
to be wild weather in the past is going to become more and more 
the norm. You know, coming from Oklahoma, I could give you a 
whole litany of what we have been dealing with, ending with the 
big cold snap that we had a couple weeks ago and how after a 
few days after we got above freezing, we were back up around 80 
degrees.
    You know, the bottom line is that I think anything that 
helps us with extreme weather, to be ready for that, and then 
also on the carbon market side, just kind of an aside, the 
Oklahoma program I referenced in my testimony, we actually did 
have the ability to hold back some of the money that went to 
producers over the life of the contract, and then once their 
contract was done, they just that full amount paid to them. 
That was held in reserve in case there was a natural disaster 
to cover any loss from an act of God that they had no control 
over, but to make sure they were not penalized. I think keeping 
that in mind with the extreme weather we are looking at is very 
critical.
    Mr. Isbell. Senator, I would add to that that I know 
nothing about forestry or timberland, but I do know a thing or 
two about natural disasters and how they affect crops. Whatever 
type of crop that is is something that we should be as 
supportive as we possibly can be and helping recovery. Rice, we 
have seen floods that have impacted rice ground here in 
Arkansas and throughout the mid-South. We have seen droughts 
that have impacted things seriously in California and in Texas 
and in Louisiana. Hurricanes have impacted harvests. It is very 
important that we have strong programs like prevent planting 
programs that help when we are unable to plant and harvest-
based programs that keep us from being able to reap all of the 
investment that up until that point we have put into the 
product that a natural disaster can take away overnight.
    Certainly in forestry, hearing your story about our friends 
to the east in Mississippi, I can very much empathize with 
that, and there certainly should be ways that they can be 
helped, just as across all crops we need to find ways to have 
strong disaster relief mechanisms in any policies that we have.
    Mrs. Smallhouse. Senator Hyde-Smith, I would like to say 
something about that, and I appreciate that question. You know, 
the management of forests, whether in the Southeast or the 
West, is extremely important. They do not manage themselves. 
You have to have proactive management. In the same token, our 
working lands are extremely important to this country, and we 
need to have risk management tools available to anyone who is 
actively managing those resources.
    I think farmers and ranchers and those who have timber are 
doing the tough job of managing more resources hands-on than 
anyone else, and ecosystem services obviously have a value to 
the rest of the country, especially in this carbon 
conversation. I absolutely think that we need to be supportive 
of those working lands in whatever way we can and proactively 
manage and proactively anticipate risk.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you for your comments.
    Is there anyone else?
    [No response.]
    Senator Hyde-Smith. Okay. I think my time is about to 
expire, and I have another question hopefully I will have the 
opportunity to ask.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much, and now I believe 
we have Senator Klobuchar with us.
    Senator Klobuchar. Well, thank you very much, Chairwoman, 
and I am reporting here from the antitrust hearing over in 
judiciary, which, as we know, has some ag implications as well.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Yes.
    Senator Klobuchar. I am looking forward to working with 
both you and Senator Boozman on these issues. I want to thank 
you for holding this really important hearing to discuss how 
farmers and foresters can play a leading role in climate change 
solutions.
    I want to start out on the renewable fuel issue. It is 
clear that renewable fuels are one of the pathways toward de-
carbonizing the transportation sector while lowering gas 
prices, driving rural economic growth, and creating jobs.
    Since 2008, the RFS, renewable fuel standard, has already 
eliminated 980 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions 
from the transportation sector. Most recently, a study by 
Harvard--we consider that the University of Minnesota of the 
East--demonstrated that using first-generation ethanol in place 
of gasoline cuts greenhouse gas emissions by 46 percent.
    Mr. Pope, can you talk about the role of renewable fuels in 
meeting our mission reduction goals?
    Mr. Pope. Senator, I think you hit the nail on the head as 
far as, you know, what we have seen as far as biofuels and 
their overall impact as far as that de-carbonization of the 
transportation fuel supply. One of the things, too, that I 
think needs to be considered in all that is not just the impact 
it has coming out of the tailpipe, but when you take that with 
producers using practices like no-till and cover crops, those 
soil health practices that can help sequester carbon dioxide in 
the soil--and you had mentioned the Minnesota of the East. I 
want to throw out there Oklahoma State University, which 
sometimes is called the ``Princeton of the Prairie,'' actually 
did a study a few years back that showed that if you convert to 
no-till, you are burning at least with winter wheat acres in 
Oklahoma three gallons of diesel or less per acre per year. If 
you think about that, convert that to corn and soybeans in 
States like yours, the Upper Midwest, that is something that 
does not get looked at either, the impact that it has on that 
lowering of emissions and that de-carbonization that you talked 
about.
    Clearly, I do believe that, you know, biofuels have a very 
strong role to play, and I think when you tie that with the 
farming practices that fall underneath that soil health 
agriculture suite of practices, I think clearly that is 
definitely one of the arrows in our quiver that we want to hang 
onto and shoot at the target when we have a chance.
    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much.
    Another piece of this, of course, is soil health and 
conservation practices. Senator Thune and I have been working 
on this cover crop issue for a long time. We also are going to 
be reintroducing our legislation to improve the use of 
conservation data analysis so that farmers can identify the 
most effective conservation techniques.
    I have been out with some of our farmers, and with the new 
technology you can literally figure out how much water you need 
in plants in certain parts of fields and save water that way. 
There are all kinds of things you can do with the data.
    Mr. Reifsteck, can you talk about how you have used data to 
inform decisions about conservation practices?
    Mr. Reifsteck. Certainly, Senator. One of the challenges 
farmers have is it is easy to go out and make changes in your 
farming operations and observe the changes in yield or in soil 
conservation practices. One of the big challenges we have is it 
is very hard for a farmer to see and know what is going on in 
terms of their greenhouse gas mitigation. You cannot walk out 
in the field and say, ``Oh, I am doing a good job today.'' You 
just cannot do that. We have to rely on good data that will 
help foster good practices.
    Now, farmers cannot have the kinds of research tools that I 
have available to me on my farm, but in the future, I think 
there will be more of those tools that are available. We need 
to make sure that we are measuring outcomes that are desirable. 
When we cannot measure outcomes, we have to measure the 
practices. We know on my farm that conservation tillage reduces 
the amount of carbon that is released into the air. We know 
from other research that cover crops can be a very important 
factor. That is on my farm. Every farm will have a different 
story about how they need to make changes, because I do think 
there is a role for every farmer, and we need to make sure the 
policies there encourage every farmer to participate to the 
best of their ability.
    Senator Klobuchar. Very good. I know my time is running out 
here, but just to spur what we just said, a recent study 
conducted on 100 farms across nine States, including Minnesota, 
by the Soil Health Institute and Cargill showed that adopting 
soil health management practices led to 86 percent of farmers 
increasing their net income, reducing average costs by up to 
$24 an acre, and 97 percent of participating farmers reported 
increased resilience in extreme weather. We look at the 
droughts that I know--I was just talking to Senator Hoeven and 
Senator Thune about the droughts that they are seeing in their 
States kind of creeping into Minnesota right now. I think all 
of this, as we take on climate change in a big, big way, we 
must find solutions not just for the world, but also it 
actually will benefit our farmers if we do this right. Do you 
see it that way?
    Okay, good. It was muted, but I could hear what you said.
    Mr. Reifsteck. Absolutely.
    Senator Klobuchar. Excellent. Okay, thank you, and thank 
you to Chairwoman Stabenow and Senator Boozman for a great 
hearing.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thanks so much, Senator Klobuchar.
    I believe that Senator Fischer is with us. We will give her 
a moment to see if she--I know she is logged on, but I am not 
sure if she is in front of her computer. I am not sure.
    If not, if Senator Fischer is not, then we have--Senator 
Thune I believe is.
    Senator Thune. Madam Chair, thank you, and Ranking Member 
Boozman. Thanks for holding the hearing to discuss the role 
producers play in environmental stewardship, conserving our 
resources, and sequestering carbon, all while continuing to 
feed a growing population. I want to thank our witnesses for 
appearing before the Committee today and for your input on this 
issue.
    Farmers and ranchers, I would say, have made tremendous 
progress in increasing efficiency and improving the 
environmental sustainability of agriculture in recent decades, 
and this has occurred without Federal mandates, which is why it 
is so critical that we maintain a voluntary producer-driven 
approach.
    Mrs. Wittman Stitt and Mr. Pope, in your testimoneys you 
both mentioned that you utilize no-till farming in your 
operation. South Dakota is a leader in no-till farming. Even in 
2019, the wettest year on record for South Dakota, no-till 
farming was used to plant 50 percent of our State's crops, and 
we expect this figure to continue to rise.
    As we look at proposals to help facilitate farmers' access 
to carbon markets, could you talk about the importance of 
ensuring that early adopters like yourselves and the many 
producers across South Dakota who have already invested 
significant amounts of time and resources into no-till farming 
and other conservation practices are able to benefit from that?
    Mrs. Wittman Stitt. Certainly. Thank you, Senator. As I 
mentioned in my testimony, how early adopters will be treated 
is one of the huge issues that causes concern to growers. Right 
now everybody wants new carbon. Very few companies right now 
seem willing to pay for any sort of past performance, and there 
are huge risks with that model. Not only are you creating 
adverse incentives to those that did the right thing on their 
own dime in previous years, but you risk incentivizing the 
unwinding of past practices.
    The bottom line is we really need Congress and USDA to step 
in and help provide a viable path forward for early adopters, 
or we risk getting left behind.
    Mr. Pope. I will just echo that 100 percent. She is spot-on 
as far as the question of early adopters and making sure--you 
know, as I said in my testimony, I cannot think of anything 
that would be a bigger policy mistake than not having some way 
to recognize those folks that have been doing good stewardship 
on their land for in some cases decades. There is also the 
issue, too, of recognizing that there are some folks, just 
because of where they are at, they are not going to be able to 
sequester a whole lot of carbon. If you think about somebody 
down around Lubbock in that golden spread area in West Texas 
that is growing cotton, doing no-till, doing coverage, 
incorporating livestock, everything we want them to do, but 
because they are down there, it is going to take them a heck of 
a long time to build organic matter compared to somebody up in, 
say, Iowa that is a corn and bean producer. At the same time, 
they are controlling soil erosion, protecting water quality, 
lengthening the live of that aquifer down there, conserving 
water, burning less diesel, multiple things that are benefits 
to society. We have got to have a way to recognize those guys.
    Yes, the issue of early adopters and the bundled benefits, 
the co-benefits beyond just carbon from these practices we are 
talking about, we need to find a home for them in policy 
somewhere.
    Senator Thune. Thank you. Mr. Pope, in your testimony you 
mentioned the recent study that shows corn ethanol has 46 
percent lower life cycle emissions than conventional gasoline. 
A 2019 USDA report suggested that improved biofuel 
technologies, higher crop yields per acre, and the ag 
conservation practices that we are discussing here today could 
reduce life cycle emissions by as much as 70 percent.
    Could you discuss or affirm the importance of having 
accurate modeling and data to make sure that we are fully 
recognizing the environmental contributions of biofuels?
    Mr. Pope. Well, I think you said it well. I think making 
sure that we have got that good data, that we have got that 
accurate modeling, that is showing what is going on. I would 
even take it a step further, Senator. I think it would be 
helpful for USDA to look at the suite of all the activities 
that have happened since the passage of the last Farm Bill and 
get a handle on what we are doing as far as impacting the 
climate, because I think there is a lot of good work that is 
going on out there that is not getting credit, and I think that 
we need to do that, because everybody likes to be recognized 
for the good work they are doing. At the same time, it also 
helps to let people know that, you know, there is a way forward 
and that working together through these practices we talked 
about, through these voluntary, incentive-based programs, we 
can get a handle on it.
    I mentioned water quality in my testimony and some of the 
success we have seen in addressing that problem. Whether you 
are talking about biofuels, whether you are talking about some 
of these other areas of environmental improvement, I think 
clearly having that modeling and recognizing the good work that 
is being done is critical to moving forward.
    Senator Thune. Thank you. I do not have a clock in front of 
me, so, Madam Chair, you will have to let me know here. I would 
just want to quickly touch on----
    Chairwoman Stabenow. You have 20 seconds.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Thune. All right. Mrs. Smallhouse, as a cattle 
producer, I am sure you are well aware of the recent efforts to 
shift U.S. consumers to fake meat products to mitigate climate 
change. Could you react to that and talk about some of the 
things that cattle producers are doing to address this issue?
    Mrs. Smallhouse. Absolutely. Thank you, Senator Thune. Such 
a great question. The fact is that shifting livestock 
production to other countries does not make any sense. 
America's livestock producers are the most efficient in the 
world. As Senator Boozman stated in his opening comments, we 
produce 18 percent of the beef with 6 percent of the herd. The 
fact is that beef is an affordable, easily accessible source of 
nutrition, high protein, low calorie, which is something that 
we certainly need in our communities today. The fact is that we 
have done a lot. We have reduced carbon emissions by 30 percent 
since the 1970's, so we should be rewarded for that. The 
American consumer should feel happy about eating beef and other 
livestock products in the United States, knowing that we have 
done much work in the last several decades to decrease our 
carbon footprint.
    Senator Thune. Thank you.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thanks very much, Senator Thune. You 
will be happy to know we have been talking a lot about soil 
health and the efforts that you led in the last farm bill, so 
thank you.
    Senator Warnock, welcome. Another one of our wonderful new 
members.
    Senator Warnock. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Stabenow. It 
is great to serve with you on this Committee, and it is an 
honor to be at my very first Agriculture Committee hearing 
under your leadership.
    My home State of Georgia has a diverse agriculture economy, 
leading the country in poultry production. We are also a high 
producer of cotton, peanuts, fruits, and vegetables. It is also 
the home of a large number of black farmers and other farmers 
of color who have historically suffered discrimination at the 
hands of the United States Department of Agriculture.
    I am proud that the American Rescue Plan Act includes many 
of the provisions that I put together to begin the process of 
addressing this discrimination, including debt forgiveness and 
new investments. Indeed, we have to do more. These farmers, 
because of disparities rooted in our racial past, exacerbated 
by COVID-19, are struggling just to stay afloat.
    Mrs. Smallhouse, you noted in your testimony that policy 
which addresses proactive measures to influence climate 
conditions cannot be one-size-fits-all. I agree with you there. 
Can you or anyone else on the panel talk about equity, talk 
about the importance of ensuring that farmers who have faced 
historical discrimination are included in these policy 
conversation related to climate change and agriculture? How can 
these farmers, particularly those who have small-scale farms or 
manage diversified operations, to the climate change solution, 
even while struggling to stay afloat?
    Mrs. Smallhouse. Well, Senator, I would be happy to answer 
that. Thank you for that question. You know, the fact is that 
one of the reasons that I am involved in Farm Bureau is 
because, with no disrespect to other agricultural groups, we 
are one of the most inclusive and transparent organizations 
that exist. We have lots of policy which tries to promote 
farmers of all ethnicities, all types, traditional farming, 
organic farming, urban farmers, rural farmers. I think that any 
discrimination that has happened within the USDA or anywhere 
else in the past is an absolute tragedy. The fact is that the 
Farm Bureau at all levels, from the county to the State to the 
national level, is ready to step up and fight for those farmers 
and ensure that does not happen within the Federal Government 
or anywhere else.
    American agriculture is strong because of our diversity--
our diversity of thought, our diversity of types of farming, 
our diversity of agriculture. I think that any programs that we 
talk about for carbon sequestration and environmental 
stewardship should be open and available to anyone who is a 
steward over our natural resources regardless of who they are, 
where they come from, or what they are farming.
    Senator Warnock. Thank you for your response. It is 
certainly true that historically disadvantaged farmers have to 
be center in a policy around addressing the issue of climate 
change, and I look forward to working with you in the future to 
ensure that.
    I am looking for the clock. It looks like I have got a few 
more minutes.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Yes, you do.
    Senator Warnock. Mrs. Wittman Stitt, your testimony noted 
that technical and economic barriers often discourage and limit 
the adoption of climate-smart practice. Additionally, Mrs. 
Smallhouse asserted that the 1890 land grant institutions, 
which are HBCUs, have served as an invaluable resource in 
developing new technologies for our farmers to implement. We 
have got land grant institutions in Georgia, including Fort 
Valley State University. The Agricultural Research and 
Cooperative Extension activities happening at these 
universities are a lifeline for farmers in Georgia.
    Could either of you speak to this question: What are the 
barriers farmers face when attempting to adopt climate-smart 
practices? How can our Cooperative Extension Service in Georgia 
help farmers overcome these barriers?
    Mrs. Smallhouse. Yes, if I may, I would be glad to speak to 
that. Cooperative Extension is extremely important in our land 
grant universities. I know here in Arizona, in the Southwest, 
in New Mexico, we have desert ag centers and cooperative 
extension experimental ranges. I am sure you have something 
similar in the Southeast. Funding for ag research, which I 
stated in my testimony, is absolutely imperative for this 
effort moving forward. You know, we need to find crops that 
grow faster and stronger in shorter growing seasons. That is 
one of the challenges for cover crops. We need to find better 
technologies for irrigation and holding that water in the soil.
    Those would just be a couple of things, and I do not want 
to monopolize the time, so I would then throw it to Mrs. 
Wittman Stitt.
    Mrs. Wittman Stitt. Absolutely, and thank you, Senator, for 
that question. As I mentioned, we do quite a bit of on-farm 
research just to figure out what is going to work in our 
growing area. What we have discovered is that what works on one 
end of the farm may not work on the other end, let alone in the 
next county or region. These can be really costly experiments. 
We still have to pay the rent on the ground whether or not a 
certain experiment works or not.
    The bottom line is we really need more robust research to 
help develop these practices and get that information into the 
hands of the producers that are implementing them on their 
farms, and that research needs to span the country and cover 
diverse growing regions.
    Senator Warnock. Thank you very much.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much, Senator.
    I believe we have Senator Fischer with us now.
    Senator Fischer. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Good morning.
    Senator Fischer. Good to be with you today.
    To Mrs. Wittman Stitt, in developing any voluntary climate-
focused program, our top priority should be ensuring 
opportunities are easily accessible to producers. Repeatedly we 
see solid, well-intentioned programs get lower-than-intended 
participation, often because the regulatory red tape outweighs 
any benefit farmers would receive. Put simply, if our goal is 
to improve the environment, credit verification cannot be more 
burdensome than absolutely necessary.
    How does the Alliance plan to address this issue and ensure 
that producers across the country are incentivized to 
participate in the voluntary program?
    Mrs. Wittman Stitt. Thank you for that question, Senator. 
The Food and Ag Climate Alliance has put together package of 
really incredible proposals that span the gamut. I will focus 
specifically on the Growing Climate Solutions Act because I 
think that is one of the first things that can provide a marker 
in the ground. One of the things this legislation does is house 
this process in the USDA. Farmers are accustomed to working 
with USDA and with our local agencies, and that gives farmers 
access to those programs. That bill is going to help give some 
structure and validity and certainty to those wanting to enter 
the carbon market. It would create a clearinghouse at USDA to 
do that, and that would address some of our challenges with 
certification and verification, process that right now are 
extremely costly. That is just one thing that we can do to get 
this ball rolling.
    Senator Fischer. I know you know that the Corn Belt is 
very, very diverse, and the country outside of that even more 
so. This marketplace needs the flexibility to allow the various 
cropping and grazing regions across the country to leverage any 
tool to improve sustainability in a way that fits their unique 
challenges, resources, and the crops and the livestock that is 
raised.
    How do we make sure that we do not create a program that 
favors certain regions and their practices over another?
    Mr. Pope. Well, if that is thrown out to everybody, I will 
jump in real quick.
    Senator Fischer. Good, okay.
    Mr. Pope. One of the things that I had mentioned, going 
back to your earlier question about verification, is this idea 
of making USDA the referee, and I would use CSP as an example 
where you have those local resource concerns through your State 
that kind of drive that initial process of putting together 
your plan to qualify underneath CSP. I think idea of having 
USDA and those local service centers involved and, of course, 
using conservation programs as an example, where you have 
locally elected conservation districts that help set priorities 
for those programs, you have your State agencies that work be 
those districts and USDA, NRCS, I think you have got a system 
that gives you some flexibility, if it is kind of modeled into 
that, locally led, voluntary, incentive-based method that we 
have had going back to the days of the Dust Bowl. I think we 
can craft something that takes that into consideration because 
it is not a one-size-fits-all. Even in my home State, I am a 
wheat and cattle producer on dual-purpose winter wheat. I also 
run cow-calf on grassland. You know, you go to eastern 
Oklahoma, and you have got guys--we do have some timberland. I 
made a joke about trees earlier, but there is timberland in 
Oklahoma. You know, we have got cotton producers in southwest 
Oklahoma. Even within just counties, just a couple counties 
over, you have got a change in dynamics. That is why it is so 
important that you have that locally led focus. I will put a 
shout out to that. I think having that input--but, again, that 
is why it is so critical that USDA serve as the referee and be 
the guider in this system and use that same approach to tackle 
this natural resource challenge the way that we have dealt with 
so many in the past, and going back to that experience with the 
Dust Bowl, quite frankly, did it in a good way.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Pope.
    I had a couple questions I wanted to get to Mrs. 
Smallhouse. The opportunities for farmers to sell greenhouse 
gas credits seem to be focused on projects that sequester 
carbon in the soil. For a Nebraska feedyard or a cow-calf 
producer, that may not be an area where they can engage. In 
what ways are the voluntary markets valuing credits that are 
derived from livestock practices, such as reduced methane 
emissions?
    Mrs. Smallhouse. Thank you so much for that question, 
Senator Fischer. I think that, you know, a lot of practices 
having to do with livestock operations, especially concentrated 
feeding operations, are extremely expensive, and that is where 
it comes into play again of having incentive-based, voluntary 
actions. You know, California has done a lot of work with 
digesters, methane digesters, and things like that. I think 
that, you know, the partnering of the livestock feed operations 
with the range operations shows that with the whole food system 
in those industries, you are sequestering carbon, and it is 
important that we all do it efficiently on every end.
    If I could, I would like to agree with Mr. Pope. We are 
both big fans of the conservation districts, and I did want to 
answer your first question in the sense that I think that this 
hearing today on behalf of Chairwoman Stabenow and all of you 
Senators is a great first step, because, absolutely, it would 
take you forever to talk to every farmer and get their 
situation. The fact is that if you go to the farmer, if you go 
to the rancher, and you get local input--and those conservation 
districts were built for that--it is extremely important.
    Senator Fischer. I agree. If I could, Madam Chair, I would 
just like to make a point that I hope the Committee will look 
at. Roughly 68 percent of the Ogallala aquifer sits directly 
below Nebraska, and our farmers and ranchers are good stewards 
of that precious resource. I would like to see us also get into 
a discussion on the role of water conservation when we look at 
the climate market space. Thank you very much to our panel.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much, Senator Fischer. 
Those are points well taken that we need to work on together.
    [Pause.]
    Chairwoman Stabenow. I believe Senator Booker is with us, 
another one of our great new members. Welcome.
    Senator Booker. I am here for my first Ag Committee 
hearing.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Wonderful.
    Senator Booker. I am so grateful to the Chairwoman as well 
as the Ranking Member for holding this hearing. I am so excited 
and honored to be joining this Committee. It is really a 
culmination of my Senate experience to be a part of this 
convening where you see so much bipartisan work. I am really 
glad we are focusing today on how we can help America's farmers 
and foresters be partners in solving the climate crisis, I 
believe be leaders in getting us out of this crisis.
    We know climate change is a grave threat to our planet, and 
we are already feeling its severe impacts. In recent years, 
farmers have been on the front lines of some of the worst 
extreme weather events, from droughts to floods to wildfires 
and more. In addition to presenting us with big challenges, 
climate change also presents us, I believe, with extraordinary 
opportunities, and we have already had effective science-based 
solutions that just need to be scaled up. We are already doing 
things that point the way to the future.
    Currently in the U.S., our forests and wetlands absorb 
about 10 percent of carbon emissions. Scientists are telling us 
that there is a lot of potential to sequester so much more 
carbon if we make the right investments. I believe the people 
that should be receiving those investments are farmers and 
ranchers who will not only reduce the agricultural emissions 
but substantially increase carbon sequestration in our soils.
    Our witnesses have told us in their testimony that this 
will make our farms and communities more resilient, protect 
drinking water, reduce flooding, enhance biodiversity. With the 
climate crisis here, I believe we do not have time to wait. We 
must unleash the power of forests and farmlands to remove 
carbon from the atmosphere and maximize the benefits of these 
conservation practices.
    I just want to say to all the witnesses, I was excited in 
your testimony to see that there are many areas of agreement on 
a potential path forward that we should take now, and I want to 
say, if I can condense your testimony into four principles that 
have broad agreement, that can be an immediate part of the 
solution, and I believe should be the Committee's focus:
    One, that any solution needs to be voluntary. Farmers are 
already too often selling crops below the cost of production 
and have a hard enough time keeping their operation going. We 
need voluntary transition.
    No. 2, Mrs. Stitt told us, ``We need to think big if we 
want to tackle this problem.''
    Which brings me to No. 3, increasing our investments in 
existing voluntary USDA conservation programs such as EQIP, 
CSP, CRP, must be a top priority. These programs are known and 
trusted by farmers. They are already vastly oversubscribed. 
Farmers are demanding more for these programs, and they include 
practices that have been scientifically tested as well as 
ground-tested.
    Mr. Isbell stated in his testimony, ``The adoption of 
innovative practices at the farm level has been largely due to 
the financial and technical support provided through the USDA 
working land programs.'' As Mr. Isbell also pointed out, in 
2018, in the mid-South region, only 22 percent of EQIP 
applications were funded. In other words, the overwhelming 
majority were turned down because these programs are too darn 
small.
    Finally, is the fourth point: that we must invest heavily 
in farm-level technical assistance. As Mr. Pope said and others 
have told us, there is no cookie-cutter solutions here. 
Practices that work on one type of farm in one region of the 
country will not work for other farms. We simply will not be 
able to achieve the adoption of climate-friendly practices at 
the scale we need to without substantially increasing our 
investment in USDA conservation programs.
    I am really proud that in 2019--and this is what I want to 
get my one question on--the Climate Stewardship Act which we 
introduced is really a bill focused on climate solutions that 
fall into the four principles I just laid out by massively 
existing the proven programs with the USDA, including CSP, 
EQIP, CRP, and the REAP program. The bill would triple the 
funding for these practices and make a big difference.
    Mr. Pope, in your testimony you reference how good 
investing in soil health has been good, not just from an 
economic--excuse me, not just from a climate change 
perspective, but also from an economic perspective from your 
farm's bottom line. Can you elaborate on that, please?
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Senator Booker, I am just going to 
jump in as well because I know you do not have a clock in front 
of you. As a new member, I just want you to know, we have let 
you go long on your time. We will let Mr. Pope answer the 
question, but we very much appreciated your comments. Mr. Pope?
    Mr. Pope. Well, Senator, like I said--and I appreciate that 
question, because like I said, you know, if you look at where 
we are at right now, we are cutting some of the best wheat we 
have ever cut, and, you know, we are using roughly half the 
fertilizer we did with conventional till, plus we are burning 
less fuel. I mean, lower input costs, better yields. We are 
still grazing cattle, plus we get 60 to 90 days worth of 
grazing off the cover crops that we are following our winter 
wheat crop with. For us economically, it has been a home run.
    One thing I would like to say, though, kind of building off 
of your statement leading up to the question, you mentioned 
about conservation programs. I would also like to throw out 
there that one of the things that I think needs to be given 
consideration is how other programs fit in with this idea of 
land treatment practices and, quite frankly, with the 
conservation title. In my testimony I referenced the water 
quality success of Oklahoma. A lot of that was done through EPA 
Section 319 funds, which in Oklahoma we basically turned into 
another cost-share program, and RCS provides technical 
assistance for our State conservation agencies. It is a 
priority area, FSA where applicable to help start a 
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, and we get all these 
things working together. There is more that can be done in that 
area, whether it is using State drinking water revolving fund 
to encourage cities to look at land treatment as an alternative 
to brick-and-mortar treatment plants when they have nonpoint 
source pollution challenges, using some of the tools that rural 
development, some of their water and wastewater loan programs, 
and maybe trying to incentivize more in the way of partnering 
again on land treatment practices.
    FSA, talking about loan programs for things like redoing 
grain storage facilities, incorporating energy efficiency into 
that. It is real tempting, and it is easy to do, it is human 
nature to get stovepiped, and this is what we look at. We look 
at this practice. I had a chance to talk about water quality a 
few years ago, and a gal from EPA said, ``Well, how is Oklahoma 
addressing all this water quality? These producers are doing 
this stuff to control soil erosion, to reduce input costs. They 
are not doing it for water quality.'' My answer to her was, 
``Look, ma'am, I like to drink beer, and I like to eat chicken-
fried steak. If I go to my doctor and my doctor says, `Clay, 
you are drinking too much beer and eating too much chicken-
fried steak, you are getting fat, you are going to have a heart 
attack,' well, I may or may not listen to him. If I walk home 
and my wife opens up the door and says, `Clay, you are getting 
too fat, you are drinking too much beer and eating too much 
chicken-fried steak, you have got to lose weight because I do 
not like the way you look--Senator,' I have got a problem.'' 
When I lose that weight to make my wife look happy, I am still 
going to be avoiding a heart attack, and that is kind of the 
same thing. If we can get these issues working together across 
agency lines, I think we can get a bigger bite at this than we 
really understand. The challenge is we have got to have that--
and I will throw in a plug for the hubs that were created under 
Secretary Vilsack's first run as Secretary of Agriculture. The 
idea of bringing everybody together and looking at what the 
pieces of the puzzle look like and seeing what pieces are 
missing I think is critical, and I think some success can be 
there as well.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you, Senator Booker. We are so 
glad you are part of the Committee. Mr. Pope, there was a lot 
there to think about here. Thank you very much.
    A vote has started for our members' awareness. At this 
point I have Senators Marshall, Lujan, and Braun, who are still 
wishing to ask questions. I do not have others at this moment. 
We will just continue. I believe we can get through our 
questioning before we have to vote. Senator Marshall, welcome 
to you as well. We are very, very happy to have you on the 
Committee from the wonderful State of Kansas, home of the 
former Chairman.
    Senator Marshall. Well, Chairwoman Stabenow and Ranking 
Member Boozman, it is the honor of a lifetime as a fifth-
generation farm kid to now be sitting on the Senate Ag 
Committee. I feel like I carry the weight of so many farmers 
and ranchers and really so many Kansans as I come here and, as 
you mentioned, filling some huge boots of Senator Pat Roberts 
who certainly goes on that Mount Rushmore of ag policy 
developers here in Washington, DC. We do not know who the other 
three are, but certainly he goes on there somewhere--oh, of 
course, yes, the Chairwoman and the Ranking Member as well.
    It is an honor to be here, and I am excited that our first 
Committee meeting that I get to attend is on really the 
environment and innovative solutions, and this being my first 
hearing on the Ag Committee, I want to go on the record that I 
am in favor of a cleaner, safer, healthier environment, that I 
want to leave it better than I found it, that I love the great 
outdoors. My favorite memories are memories with friends and 
family, hunting, fishing, boating, and even--it is hard for me 
to believe I am saying this, but some of my favorite memories 
were sitting on an Allis Chalmers tractor cultivating milo as a 
young 15- and 16-year old, maybe driving a wheat truck to the 
Burns co-op. I appreciate everybody who has been here, and I 
just want to remind folks that farmers and ranchers were the 
original conservationists, the greatest conservationists in the 
world, that we are growing more today with less than we ever 
did before, that we are feeding this country, we are feeding 
the world, and being judicious with our resources.
    Folks walk up to me and talk about no-till farming, 
something we have been doing for 20 years on my farm. People 
talk about precision agriculture. We have been doing that for 
20 or 30 years in Kansas, but now let us take it to the next 
level. We are here to talk about conservation and innovative 
solutions, and I appreciate everyone's testimony and all the 
many, many things that they have shared with us.
    My first question is for Mrs. Smallhouse, and this is a 
tough one. Is carbon a commodity? Mrs. Smallhouse, how do you 
feel, is carbon a commodity?
    Mrs. Smallhouse. Well, thank you for that question, Senator 
Marshall, and I guess I would be a little tongue-in-cheek and 
say that if farmers starting growing it, quote-unquote, then it 
will be a commodity. We tend to do that to things because we do 
such a good job and we are so efficient.
    I think it certainly might be looked at that, but like 
other commodities, we need to really be careful about the share 
of that value that goes to the farmer, because what ends up 
happening when you commoditize things is the share that goes to 
the actual farmer who is doing the bulk of the work gets 
smaller and smaller. I guess I would just leave that as my 
answer.
    Senator Marshall. Okay. I am going to try to help answer 
then. I think this is a great discussion for us to have in this 
Committee. Where is the value? If you are going to call carbon 
a commodity, which I do not think it is, where is the value? 
People are not being paid to produce the carbon. The value is 
in the service of sequestration. For it to be considered a 
commodity, we would have to develop standardized contracts for 
trading the value of it as well. We do not trade on services 
like shingling a house. I think that it is not a commodity. 
Agriculture is already leading the way and is really the only 
industry in the world that can actually already--is already 
doing this. I think that someday we will be talking in terms of 
when you grow an acre of corn, how much carbon are you taking 
out of the atmosphere to grow an acre of corn or to grow an 
acre of soybeans, or if you have 80 acres of pastureland, how 
much carbon is that pasture taking out of the atmosphere?
    My next question--I guess it will be my last question--this 
is for Mr. Isbell. What are your thoughts on additionality and 
permanence? This is for Mr. Isbell. What are your thoughts on 
additionality and permanence? To participate in carbon 
programs, how frequently do you think producers should be 
adding new practices? How long should carbon be stored to be 
eligible for carbon programs? What do we do for those producers 
that have been doing innovative practices already for decades 
to make sure they are not left out in the cold? That is for Mr. 
Isbell.
    Mr. Isbell. Absolutely. Well, thank you for that question, 
and it is an important question because the reality is there 
are a lot of farmers that have been doing these practices for 
many years, and on our farm we have got some fields that we 
have had in rice production for 60 years and built organic 
matter up to seven-plus percent. If we create markets or create 
policies that create perverse incentives, I mean, I would never 
do this, but what the market would tell you to do would be to 
go out and plow all that up, burn that carbon out of the soil 
so I can soak it back up, basically squeeze the sponge dry so 
that I can soak the sponge back full and then get paid for 
that. We have to approach things in a manner that we do not see 
that happen and we are not incentivizing that.
    Now, on the other side of that, that is why it is important 
that we look at practices beyond just carbon sequestration. A 
ton of carbon that is mitigated is a ton of carbon that we 
never have to sequester. A ton of carbon that is avoided or a 
certain amount of methane or nitrous oxide that is avoided is 
one that automatically has permanence, because we do not have 
to track that further beyond that activity. We have activity-
based incentives that could flow through NRCS contracts, just 
like the CSP, just like EQIP, where once that activity is done, 
it has permanence. That would be a good approach.
    Senator Marshall. Thank you so much. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. The clock is 
moving on the vote. We are going to move to Senator Lujan. Are 
you with us?
    Senator Lujan. I am, Madam Chair. It is an honor.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Welcome. Another one of our great new 
members. Welcome.
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that, Madam Chair Stabenow. 
Good to be with you and Ranking Member Boozman for this 
hearing. It is a pleasure to be with you all. I also grew up on 
a small farm where we predominantly were self-sustenance 
farmers, and all we have growing right now is a little bit of 
hay and some alfalfa and some other tracts, but God willing, I 
will be able to get back to growing and producing here soon.
    Now, these issues matter to my constituents in New Mexico, 
and like many other places, we are already living through the 
impacts of changing climate. New Mexico has already seen 
reduced snowpack, increased risk of wildfire, and severe 
droughts.
    Mr. Pope, in your testimony you talk about the importance 
of using the best science and how we need to invest in research 
monitoring, farm-level technical assistance to achieve these 
emission reductions. New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, 
New Mexico, is leading the way on this work for arid and semi-
arid climates across the globe. Why is this research so 
important, especially for arid and semi-arid climates like 
those in New Mexico?
    Mr. Pope. Well, I think it has been touched on earlier. You 
know, we have got to have across-the-board--we have got to have 
that research and have it site-specific because we are dealing 
with different realities even within States. As you know, when 
you have variation between different regions of a State, you 
are going to have different realities for those producers. 
Making sure that they have information that is usable to them 
and that they can access it, which goes to the point that was 
made earlier about the extension service and getting that 
information out there, I think is critical, because, again, one 
of the challenges that we get into and one of the things I 
think we really need to focus on is making sure not just that 
those research dollars and resources are there, but they are 
utilized in a way to really look at the challenges that we 
face.
    As I mentioned earlier, it is human nature to get 
stovepiped, and sometimes you will have, you know, someone who 
is working in the area of soil health who is an agronomist. 
They do not necessarily focus the same way or address the same 
issues that a soil scientist would. They do not incorporate 
livestock because they are not an animal science producer. 
Nobody is an econ professor, so they are not looking at the 
economic impact.
    We have got to have a coordinated approach that takes all 
these things into consideration; otherwise, we are never going 
to be able to crack that nut. I think it is critical that we 
have those dollars out there for institutions like New Mexico 
State, like Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, Texas Tech. You start to 
go picking down through the list--and the Agricultural Research 
Service, quite frankly, so that we have got those dollars out 
there and that we are focusing them in a way so that producers 
can have good, useful information that make sense to them, 
close to home, that works on their farm.
    Senator Lujan. Mr. Pope, you touched on this briefly, but 
can you just briefly maybe answer this one. How can the Federal 
Government better leverage our land grant universities' work in 
this space? If you could talk about the importance of creating 
demonstration projects and programs in different regions?
    Mr. Pope. Well, I will jump on that last one first, because 
I really think that is where the rubber hits the road. You 
know, I will talk about from our own operation. I mentioned our 
equipment when we converted to no-till. My dad was serious 
about soil conservation. When you start talking about cover 
crops, you know, the argument always comes back in. That might 
work in Iowa, but it ain't going to work in Oklahoma. Then we 
went to a meeting, and we had a producer who was doing a lot of 
this work about 60 miles west of us. I remember dad coming home 
and saying, ``Well, they are a hell of lot drier than we are at 
Leedey. If they can do this at Leedey, I bet it could work at 
Loyal.''
    Having the chance--and professors and folks with ARS, 
researchers, technical staff can talk all day long. If you 
really want to make a difference, a producer who is doing 
something on their land is always the best resource for another 
producer to talk to, and hopefully having a demonstrationsite 
within 40 miles of where they live so they do not have that 
argument that it does not work here, if they can go talk to 
that fellow and see what works for them, what did not work for 
them, what they do different, what they are going to try next, 
that is really where you get success. The demo farms, I 
cannot--whether it is land grant schools, ARS, the conservation 
partnership with NRCS or nongovernment organizations, having 
those demos out there and those mentors for producers to turn 
to, to talk to about some of this stuff is critical. I think 
that is absolutely important and one of the best things we can 
do, quite frankly.
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that.
    Chair Stabenow, I have another question, but I will submit 
it into the record. It really is talking about community solar, 
small-scale renewable energy projects, looking at efforts with 
some of dairies like in New Mexico where we are using this kind 
of power to get the emergency we need for anaerobic digesters 
and things of that nature. I will submit it back into the 
record and just thank you for the time today, and I appreciate 
the witnesses being available today.
    I yield back.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Well, thank you so much. We are so 
glad--as Senator Boozman and I both indicated,--to have you as 
a great new member. You are yielding back time. You get extra 
points.
    We will now turn to Senator Braun, certainly no stranger to 
this topic. We appreciate your partnership and leadership. 
Senator Braun.
    Senator Braun. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Ranking 
Member Boozman and new member Lujan that wisely, with a vote 
here, yielded back some time.
    I am in an interesting place. I have spent a lifetime 
building a logistics distribution business, but my true love is 
becoming a tree farmer back in the late 1980's, and along with 
that, I have been actively involved in agriculture. All I can 
tell you is it is my therapy each weekend from my new job of 
being a U.S. Senator.
    For the witnesses that came in today, and such a breadth of 
knowledge and input, I am not going to end up with a question, 
but I want to invite any one of you on the panel today, as a 
co-founder of the Senate Climate Caucus, to engage us, to come 
in, and we do reach-outs to all kinds of stakeholders. What I 
am going to use my four minutes here for is to give you an 
overview. It was interesting, Senator Marshall's discussion: 
What is a commodity? What is the cost of it?
    I am going to give you an analogy of an emerging technology 
that is reflected in the stock market in so many different 
places where you see that there is no profit being made by the 
company, but--and as a business owner over the years, I have 
always tried to be ahead of the curve, spent time here in 
trying to reform health care. I think climate is actually more 
doable. I think so much of the quantifiable value of being a 
good steward of your land or of your forest is yet to come.
    I want to reflect something else we have heard from Senator 
Booker as well. It has got to be voluntary. We have too much 
that asks of the Federal Government for a Federal Government 
that is definitely being strained to the max when it comes to 
our own financial health. The more we can do it and do it to 
where we have got stakeholders doing it in the trenches and it 
is voluntary, it is going to work, it is going to stick.
    Talk about ag farming and forestry, not to mention 
livestock and poultry. I have been involved as a poultry farmer 
for many years. The amount of improvement and things that we 
are doing that you would have never imagined 10 to 20 years 
ago, it is happening throughout agriculture.
    I want to talk a little bit about the Growing Climate 
Solutions bill. I have asked almost every Republican to look at 
it. I think I have got enough that we can get that thing across 
the finish line. I think where you can find real merits is not 
in the row crop side of it at first, but on the forestry side. 
Every farmer has forest ground that they generally do not pay 
attention to because it has got intermittent income, it has got 
a long-term return. Being involved in both, if you work either 
investment well, I think you can get a better investment out of 
your forest, because it is generally not managed 
professionally.
    Mother Nature generally takes care of the woods, and if you 
let Mother Nature take care of it, she is good at many things; 
but when it comes to sequestering carbon or actually using the 
woodland in a way that is going to help this current 
discussion, to me I view a lot more potential there, because 
the other discussion was made: How do you measure your 
baseline? How do you get markets to respond to the amount of 
CO2 that you are sequestering? I think it is probably going to 
be a little easier there out of the gate.
    Many people that own woodland view it as kind of something 
for recreation, not something that you get a great return on 
your investment with or that you would be able to use as a tool 
to effectively sequester carbon.
    Talking to some folks this morning in the Climate Caucus 
group with the technology of how you can measure CO2 that is 
being emitted from forests. That might be easier and less 
costly than farm ground.
    I think what we need to know here is that climate is an 
issue that is going to get increasingly more important. I think 
it is going to be easier to tackle on a bipartisan basis. I 
view it as a comparison to health care where you have got 
stakeholders and an industry that is resisting it. I see across 
the spectrum of climate different levels of business, finance, 
technology, agriculture, transportation, energy production, 
there is a willingness to do something. The bill that we have 
got out there, the Growing Climate Solutions bill, would be the 
easiest way to start, and I think for anybody that owns 
forestland across the country, you are going to find that it 
might even be more applicable to how you can help the climate. 
Agriculture farmers are doing so much already.
    Thank you.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you, Senator Braun, I very much 
appreciate working with you.
    The vote is near its end, and Senator Boozman and I are 
going to need to go vote. I am going to leave the final 
question and the closing of the hearing to Senator Hoeven. The 
record will remain open for five business days for members to 
submit a statement or additional materials.
    I am going to turn this to Senator Hoeven. I have great 
trust in Senator Hoeven to be in charge of this Committee. 
After that, Senator Hoeven, if you would adjourn the meeting. 
We want to thank again all the witnesses. It has been really an 
excellent hearing.
    Senator Hoeven.
    Senator Hoeven. Chairwoman Stabenow, thanks so much. Thanks 
for calling this hearing on this important issue. I likely will 
go over my time because Ranking Member Boozman said he did want 
to come back. He may have some additional comments. Yes, I will 
keep it going until he gets back, just so you know in case 
there is anything you want to come back for. I did say I----
    Chairwoman Stabenow. This is a very dangerous situation, so 
I am leaving the Committee in the hands of you and Ranking 
Member Boozman. This is a bipartisan Committee.
    Senator Hoeven. I would say based on our working 
relationship, and with all the things we worked on, I think you 
are in pretty safe hands.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. I think I am.
    Senator Hoeven. You know how much I like working with you.
    Chairwoman Stabenow. All right, Senator Hoeven.
    Senator Hoeven. [Presiding.] Again, thanks for calling the 
hearing and for the opportunity to question these witnesses.
    I am going to start--really, this is question for all of 
the witnesses, and essentially with any program that we work on 
in agriculture, I believe they have to be what I call ``farmer 
friendly.'' Good farm policy benefits every American every 
single day with the lowest-cost, highest-quality food supply in 
the world, thanks to our farmers and ranchers. Good farm policy 
benefits every single American every single day, but it starts 
with making sure those programs are farmer friendly, rancher 
friendly.
    As we talk about CO2, we need to make sure that they are 
farmer friendly, and so I would like each of the witnesses to 
tell me: How do we make sure, how do we make sure as we 
implement these programs, that they are truly farmer friendly? 
You may want to touch on in each of your regions, how do the 
proposed carbon payments compare with the cost of implementing 
conservation practices needed to obtain the payments? Also what 
is the break-even price for implementing carbon-reducing 
conservation practices? So kind of keep those two things in 
mind and then give me--and I do not want the whole litany, but 
from each of you, I want the most important thing in your 
opinion to make sure that these programs, whatever programs we 
deploy, are, in fact, farmer friendly. Perhaps, Mr. Isbell, do 
you want to start? Then we will just go through and have 
everybody respond.
    Mr. Isbell. Certainly, and I think the last part of your 
question focused on the economics of practices and how this 
would bring about certain credits. That is something that we 
have got to be very cautious of paying attention to, because if 
you look at the price of a ton of carbon, call it $20, and say 
we can sequester or mitigate half a ton, that is $10 an acre. 
Sometimes the cost of implementing the practice can exceed 
that. The first thing that we can do that is farmer friendly is 
make sure that as farmers adopt more risk and adopt more--as 
farmers adopt more risk, that we find ways to offset that risk 
through different incentives so that those costs do not 
overwhelm the potential benefits economically.
    You asked about farmer friendliness, too, and the first 
thing I would say is that we have to listen to farmers. We 
cannot impose solutions from above. We have to make sure that 
the farmers are part of coming up with the solutions. The 
previous Senator was talking about the Growing Climate 
Solutions Act. One of the things I would say there is we have 
to make sure that if that goes through, there are certainly 
some tweaks that have to be taken care of. One of those is to 
make sure that farmers have a voice on the Advisory Council. It 
said that there are going to be ten members from agriculture, 
but that is fairly broad, and I think some of those should be 
focused on having a farmer voice there, as well as NRCS and FSA 
seats on that.
    The other thing I would say is that it has to be voluntary. 
If it is going to be farmer friendly, it has to be voluntary, 
and that does not just mean that you do not have to do it if 
you do not want to. It also means it cannot be a predicate for 
access to other programs. We have to make sure that these 
programs----
    Senator Hoeven. Can I stop you for just a minute?
    Mr. Isbell. Sure.
    Senator Hoeven. Can we put that last sentence in capital 
letters and underline it twice when you talked about it being 
voluntary? When you say ``voluntary,'' not just voluntary but 
not be predicate for other programs, right? That is what you 
said?
    Mr. Isbell. Absolutely.
    Senator Hoeven. Yes, let us put that in capital letters and 
underline it twice. Thank you very much for saying that. I am 
sorry to interrupt, but I felt that was very important.
    Mr. Isbell. Absolutely. Then the last thing I would say is 
that it has to be flexible. As I spoke about earlier, every 
region, every crop can bring different themes to the table, and 
we have to make sure that the programs allow for that, that 
they unleash innovation rather than stifle innovation. If we do 
not openly look at all possibilities, what we can do is we can 
create distortions in the marketplace. We can create 
distortions on planning what people plant. On our farm in 
Arkansas, we grow only rice actually on our farm, which is kind 
of an outlier. I tell people we do it because that is what the 
dirt tells us to plant. If you try to plant something else, it 
is not very sustainable because you are overusing resources to 
underproduce a commodity. When we grow rice, we get the best 
return not just on our economic investment but on the ecosystem 
investment that we are making as well. We have to make sure any 
policy that is implemented does not drive people to have to do 
things on land that is less efficient than it should be.
    Senator Hoeven. Right. Okay, Mr. Pope, how about you go 
next? Add in also the role of our land grant universities in 
this. I think it was Senator Lujan who mentioned that. I 
strongly agree with him that we need to have our land grant 
research universities involved in this as well. That could be a 
component you may want to touch on, too. Maybe, Mr. Pope, you 
would like to go next.
    Mr. Pope. Well, I will touch on that real quick, because 
clearly research is a key component, as I told Senator Lujan, 
in making sure that we have got information that is application 
to where we are at I think is critical, and that idea of 
demonstration farms fits into that, and busting across research 
doctrines from hygronomy to soil science to animal science, ag 
economics, you name it.
    Beyond that, we are talking about, you know, what we need 
to do to make sure that this is farmer friendly. I am going to 
echo--I am not going to go over a lot of the same ground that 
has been gone over. I think clearly voluntary, incentive-based 
programs that have local leadership--and I think that local 
leadership component is extremely key because that helps as far 
as making sure it is addressing local natural resource 
concerns, and it also feeds up that information up the line to 
the USDA, to help them know what is working and what is not and 
how programs can be tweaked, I think that is critical as well.
    Part of that I am going to put in here is this idea of 
having USDA serve as the referee on any ecosystem's marketplace 
and having, I believe, a public sector option for verification. 
I think that is critical. We have experience in carbon credits 
in Oklahoma. I have experience both on selling credits as a 
producer and working with the conservation districts on setting 
up the program that was run. That was a State program by State 
statute.
    One of the things I think is important is that you do not 
have a situation where for a $10 credit a producer is paying 
$9.50 for verification and having to take two days to go out 
and do all the work that has to be done or hire somebody to do 
it. It is just going to be too unwieldy, too expensive, too 
complicated, and they ain't going to do it. If you can have a 
situation that is offered as part of the technical assistance 
from USDA--probably NRCS would be the best fit, but that is up 
for discussion. Clearly, some sort of verification system that 
is public in nature, that is made available to that producer, I 
think that is a key component. Then also, I think, 
understanding--and that it has got to be part of the economic 
model. You know, everybody wants to go green. Cash is green, 
too. If a farmer and I entered into a cherry operation, we 
would have to make a profit. It has to be something that makes 
economic sense for the producer, but at the same time 
recognizes the other co-benefits that go with it. That is 
something I am going to throw out there for the Federal 
Government to look at. We talk a lot about producers that are 
in areas that may not sequester as much carbon or early 
adopters. Society gets a benefit when agricultural producers 
undertake practices that control soil erosion, that protect 
water, that sequester carbon, that avoid emissions, reduce 
overall greenhouse gas levels, that do things to improve 
wildlife habitat, that conserve water. All of these 
environmental benefits, I think there needs to be consideration 
of that given as to how that does assist the body politic, the 
social society in multiple ways, and recognize that, whether it 
is through marketplaces, whether it is through some form of 
incentive-based program. You know, I mentioned an expanded CSP 
or a CSP on steroids, some hybrid, whatever it would be.
    I think that is key, and, again, as we said, voluntary, 
incentive-based, locally led that makes sense for producers, 
having USDA serve as that referee, having research from the 
Agricultural Research Service and our land grant schools, I 
think that is the model. Now the question is how we build on 
that, that super structure to make it work.
    Senator Hoeven. Yes, I think both those answers have been 
strong answers.
    Let me go to Mrs. Smallhouse.
    Mrs. Smallhouse. Yes, thank you, Senator. This is such an 
important questions, really, right? Farmer friendly, the ones 
that are going to be doing the work.
    First of all, I want to say--I am not going to repeat what 
has already been said because I agree largely with Mr. Isbell 
and Mr. Pope, but a couple of new points. We cannot rob Peter 
to pay Paul. You have a lot of good programs at USDA that 
farmers are already using, and those farmers are using programs 
to accomplish other things, like air quality. They may not get 
the value that another farmer might get for a certain practice 
to do carbon sequestration, but the fact that they are doing it 
is just as important.
    We tend to tackle problems, especially in Government, I 
think, that we look at something in a vacuum. It is like, okay, 
climate sustainability, now we are going to put all of our 
efforts into this, and every dollar is going to go to this, 
everything is going to go to this. Well, agriculture is a 
completely and very complex system, as we saw during the 
pandemic. Very complicated. We have to remember when we are 
looking at these policies, what impact is that going to have on 
maybe a trade relationship or something else, emerging markets 
for farmers? Is it going to keep them from entering other 
markets for growing things?
    Also, you know, along those lines is access to technology. 
Much of what we can accomplish for carbon sequestration is 
dependent upon biotechnology. If farmers are discouraged from 
using biotechnology based on labeling issues or trade issues--
so what I am trying to do is bring around the response of how 
interconnected agriculture is and how complex the system is, 
and we cannot create this policy in a vacuum with just looking 
at certain aspects.
    The other thing I will say to this point is that the 
Western region cannot be left out of this conversation in the 
sense that, you know, there is a lot of land in the West that 
is owned by the Federal Government, and the fact is that, you 
know, ranchers that are public land grazing on those lands 
provide a huge service to the Government and to the country as 
a whole in the work that they are doing to manage those 
forests. We have a lot of forests that are not in good shape 
right now. You look at the travesty of wildfires. It is not 
something we have talked a lot about today. A huge issue. There 
is more carbon being emitted into the atmosphere from fires in 
the West right now than we can possibly sequester or that 
States have already sequestered. A huge issue.-
    In terms of farmer friendly, do not make policy in a 
vacuum. Regulation will lead to consolidation, and that is not 
what we want. Basically, just do no harm to existing programs 
that farmers are already making use of, maybe for another 
purpose but still just as important to our environment and our 
society.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mrs. Smallhouse. Again, I think 
you make really important points, and particularly as we are 
looking at drought this year in our part of the world, your 
comments in regard to fires. Across the board, again, I think 
you made very important points as we look at this issue.
    Let me turn to Mr. Reifsteck, same question.
    Mr. Reifsteck. Okay. Thank you, Senator. You know, we are 
going to be asking a lot of our farmers to implement these 
plans on their farms. That is going to take a lot of technical 
expertise. Today we simply do not have the capacity, with 
Government agencies, with extension, to provide that kind of 
expertise on every farm. We have to recognize that.
    Now, we could add more expertise, more funding to help 
those, but we also have to realize that there are other 
organizations that want to collaborate with farmers in reaching 
good solutions. My cooperative, my cooperative system, has 
hundreds of trained agronomists. We have Ph.D.s, we have soil 
scientists. We are on those farms all the time. We have 
relationships with those farmers. We understand how they farm. 
We can be and we are planning on being part of the solution. We 
can help them implement practices. We are already exchanging a 
lot of the data that is going to be necessary to do the 
verification. We are looking at technologies that we can add on 
with our cooperative system that can provide that kind of 
verification.
    We have to encourage other parties to be a participant in 
this, recognizing the limitations on the land grant 
institutions and on the Federal agencies. I think that we have 
to recognize that contribution that is available.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you. I appreciate that. Mrs. 
Smallhouse, you mentioned not cannibalizing good programs that 
we have now that are working for our farmers and ranchers, like 
EQIP, as we deal with this issue. Again, I want to highlight 
that point you made, which I think is a very important one as 
well.
    Then, finally, I would ask Mrs. Wittman Stitt for your 
thoughts on the same question.
    Mrs. Wittman Stitt. Absolutely. I am not going to belabor a 
lot of things that have already been said. I think my 
colleagues have touched the majority of the huge points, things 
like voluntary, incentive-based, must make economic sense for 
farmers, but the concept of do no harm to existing programs is 
critical. I want to zoom out a little bit and make sure we do 
not forget the process of how we can get to some of those 
goals, and that is really----
    Senator Hoeven. Do not leave out the part on research 
universities, because you did a good job of summarizing the 
rest, but make sure you touch that, too, will you?
    Mrs. Wittman Stitt. Absolutely. I think to that end, 
facilitating partnerships, whether it is with universities or 
other technical service providers, that is a huge component.
    To zoom out for just a minute, I think we really need to 
focus on ensuring any policy is written and influenced by 
farmers. We have an unprecedented opportunity with the Food and 
Agriculture Climate Alliance having put forward policy 
recommendations. We can continue to have this dialog with the 
Ag Committee taking a leadership role in a very bipartisan 
discussion, I think we really have a unique opportunity to pass 
legislation with the input of farmers, which can then pass to 
the USDA that has great relationships with those farmers for 
implementation.
    I think we are on the right track and I am excited to have 
the invitation to continue this dialog with the Committee.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you to all of the witnesses for the 
thoughtful answers. I very much appreciate it, and I will turn 
it back to our Ranking Member.
    Senator Boozman.
    [Presiding.] Thank you, John, and I just want to say 
quickly how much I appreciate Chairwoman Stabenow having the 
hearing today, all the people that have participated. The 
witnesses have been great. Then, as always, the people that 
make this happen are staff who work so very hard to get these 
things together. It is difficult.
    I think we have learned a lot in today's conversation, and 
it is one of those issues that the more you learn, the more you 
want to delve into it, and we certainly want to look at all of 
these proposals that will make such a tremendous impact on 
agriculture, make sure we do it right.
    We had a great panel today from the FACA group, and 
something I hope that we can do in the future is hear from 
forestry a bit more in-depth in the sense that really does 
offer--you know, it is a group that really can offer a great 
deal as far as carbon sequestration.
    With that, the meeting is adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 12:46 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

      
=======================================================================

                            A P P E N D I X

                             MARCH 11, 2021

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

      
=======================================================================


                   DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                             MARCH 11, 2021

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

      
=======================================================================


                         QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

                             MARCH 11, 2021

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]